The House met at 10 a.m.
To begin with, I would like to commend the hon. member for St.
Albert on his continuing interest in the supply process and for
the diligence of his research. He will recall, through his
active participation in the improved reporting to Parliament
project, the initiatives that the government has taken in
improving the information provided to parliamentarians over the
last 12 months, initiatives in which the hon. member has been an
active participant and which he has supported on two occasions in
this House.
As part of the 1997-98 estimates process, the government
introduced modifications to part III of the estimates on a pilot
basis for 16 departments. These changes were intended to improve
the quality of the information provided to Parliament and to
provide better information on strategic and future plans, as well
as to lay the basis for providing performance information on a
more timely basis.
It is in fact from the part IIIs for these pilot departments
that the hon. member has drawn most of the information he uses to
support his point of order.
The point of order is based broadly on the precept that the
estimates should neither anticipate enabling legislation, nor
should appropriation bills be used to legislate. This is a
fundamental principle and one which the government wholeheartedly
supports. I am not going to question that principle at all. I
would just indicate that the point of order which the hon. member
has made in fact does not apply in this case.
The hon. member identifies five votes in which he claims that
the government is seeking parliamentary approval of funds for
purposes for which Parliament has not yet given legislative
authority. I will argue that this is simply not the case in any
of the five votes which have been mentioned.
I can understand why the hon. member may have come to his
conclusion. The part IIIs explain the government's plans for the
next three years, not just the first year, 1997-98, which is the
only subject of the appropriation bill.
In each of the five cases cited, the government has signalled
its intention to modify the way it does business. It has done
this through tabling draft legislation for consideration by
Parliament and, as it undertook to do as part of the improved
reporting to Parliament project, it has done this by spelling out
its plans in the part IIIs of the department concerned, not just
for the main estimates here but for two additional years.
In being asked to approve supply legislation, Parliament is
requested to approve a series of specific votes. It is the
wording of these votes that provides the legislative basis for
the expenditures of government.
The previous Speakers' rulings which the hon. member cited dealt
with specific instances where this wording was considered
inappropriate. That is not the case with the appropriation bill
at issue here. In no case is the vote wording providing or
seeking additional authority that has not already been granted by
Parliament.
In each of the five cases identified the funds sought through
the estimates process are needed for continuing operations of the
programs concerned. If the legislation authorizing the
operational changes is approved by Parliament, and only if, in
each case, then the funds will be spent in accordance with the
new legislation. If the enabling legislation is not adopted,
then these same funds will be spent in accordance with existing
parliamentary authorities.
The part IIIs from which the hon. member draws his information
are all quite clear that they are dealing with future plans and
in depicting any legislation at issue as proposed.
For example, part III states clearly, under Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, and I quote:
For the hon. member to argue that these votes be struck down on
the basis that the government has provided specific details on
its future strategies is to argue that the government should
retreat under a veil of secrecy. That is precisely what we are
trying to avoid as part of the improved reporting to Parliament
project, a project that, I underline again, has received the hon.
member's support, for which I both commend and thank him.
What a wonderful opportunity these documents provide. Parliament
now has a three year planning horizon to help them understand the
context within which new legislative proposals will operate. I
would go so far as to suggest that this level of future planning
information and disclosure is probably unique among our fellow
OECD countries.
The situation is similar for the three items where the hon.
member claims that we are legislating through supply legislation.
Again, this is simply not the case.
Vote 35 for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is simply
for program expenditures. That is the wording of the vote.
There is nothing in these words that could possibly be construed
as extending its mandate as the hon. member suggests. The vote
is neither providing nor is it seeking new or additional
authority. It is merely seeking supply.
As the hon. member notes, the Canada Communications Group item
is statutory. By definition, the amount shown is authorized by
legislation previously approved by Parliament and by that same
definition it is shown in the estimates or information as it does
not form part of the appropriation bill that Parliament will be
asked to approve. It is statutory.
The final item with which the hon. member takes issue is the
Canada Information Office. The fact of the matter is that the
order in council in question is presumed valid until repealed or
set aside by a court. Given this fact, the “program
expenditures” referred to in the vote can be nothing but
entirely consistent with that order.
The hon. member's arguments simply challenge the basis for the
order in council and have nothing to do with either the supply
process or any impropriety in the estimates themselves. The
order in council can be challenged, but once again it is valid as
long as it has not been set aside, repealed or declared invalid
by the government or by the court.
Part II of the estimates that I tabled earlier this year
contained two assurances. I will repeat both here again.
I think that in the estimates what we have done is have
submitted for the vote of the House expenditures which correspond
exactly to the wording of each vote.
The explanations given in part III, which once again are for three
future years, explained the plans of the government in case new
legislation or new policies are adopted. In every one of the
cases mentioned by the hon. member for St. Albert, the
expenditures that are sought in supply are expenditures under the
authority expressed properly by the wording of the votes.
The point we want to make is that by the very definition of
improved reporting to Parliament we are in command of better
information in order for us to make appropriate decisions and
vote according to the information laid before us.
I think the government and the estimates, especially the part
IIIs, have not provided that information to us or the minister
is alleging that we are unable to discern from these part IIIs
what monies are to be expended including the part IIs and what
are for future years.
I have already written to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
regarding one item in this improved reporting to Parliament
regarding TAGS. TAGS is a very important program for Atlantic
Canada because of the situation there. The new improved
reporting to Parliament contains three lines regarding TAGS. The
auditor general had to write three chapters on the issue. The
fisheries committee has been consumed with the issue since then.
However, this improved reporting has given us three lines to tell
us the government's initiatives, its plans, its hopes and
aspiration for this program.
Therefore, what I am trying to tell you, Mr. Speaker, is that
this improved reporting to Parliament has a long way to go.
Perhaps this debate we are having today would indicate that the
government has an obligation to clearly set out in the part IIIs,
which is an amplification of the information in the part IIs, the
Appropriation Act, so that we can understand what is in the part
IIs and also provide their direction as to where they are going
down the road in the future.
I draw your attention to the points I raised yesterday regarding
the Ports Canada Corporation. In the part IIIs and in the part
IIs the budget has been reduced to zero for this fiscal year.
The corporation is still ongoing because the legislation has not
been passed in this House. Obviously the work the corporation
was doing is still ongoing. Obviously the money it is spending
is coming from somewhere because the proposal by the minister is
that budget be zero. We are being asked to vote on that budget
to say the budget is zero.
We know, the minister knows, the Minister of Transport knows
that the work is ongoing and the methodology and the focus of the
government will change once the legislation is passed. Here we
are in this particular instance, and no doubt it applies to the
others too, where by our vote this evening, if we are to vote, we
will endorse something the government intends to implement rather
than voting for what has taken place so far.
The minister talked about legislation, using the part IIIs,
improved reporting to Parliament and how they outline initiatives
that the government may wish to take. Hence he used that to
justify his argument about legislation to be introduced.
As I said, the government has an obligation to tell us what we
are voting on. We do not want to debate the issues of the
estimates in a vacuum. This was the whole debate regarding the
improved reporting to Parliament as far as the estimates, the
performance documents and so on, and the whole debate circled
around that. But we do not want to try to determine the $50
billion odd that we are voting on without having it in context.
So we ask the government to lay out its plans for the future.
The performance documents will give us some historical
documentation in the same format so we can assess the issues.
But we specifically ask that the estimates be laid out clearly as
this year's appropriations within the context of a wider vision,
forward and historical.
Again I tell the minister, and I use the TAGS example of three
lines for a very major and important program that affects very
seriously a major part of this country, that if the government
feels that improved reporting to cover what it is doing this
year, next year and how it is going to resolve the issue down the
road can be covered off in three lines, that beats me. I think
that speaks for itself.
The minister talked about the proposed environmental protection
act. Part IIIs talk about the proposed environmental protection
act. It was introduced in the last Parliament. I said yesterday
that the part IIIs were introduced last February 20 and the
identical documents were introduced on October 1, even though it
now appears that with the intervening election the government's
initiatives, agenda and list of priorities have changed.
We are being asked to vote an appropriation act based on the
government's agenda as it was before the election, not as it is
today. We know, because the government did not table all the
legislation that died on the order paper, that the government's
agenda has changed.
Surely if the government had respect for this House it would
have redrafted the estimates to reflect the new initiatives and
it sought not to do so.
The mandate for the International Trade Tribunal appears, again
according to the part IIIs, to have been expanded and extended
and legislation is required for that. There is nothing in the
part IIIs to suggest that the government intends to introduce
legislation.
On CCG, the Canada Communications Group, the minister talks
about it being a statutory program. I outlined in my argument
yesterday why even though it is a statutory program we as
parliamentarians are being asked to vote on it. It is because it
has a revolving fund and we vote on revolving funds. Take that
into consideration, Mr. Speaker, when you are doing your
deliberations please.
Finally, when the minister talked about how they are valid until
challenged and struck down here or in court, this is the highest
court of the land. I am asking you, and I asked you yesterday,
not to defer this decision to a court, but this court; this court
that defends the rights of the people and the rights of the
Commons, that has the sole right to grant supply to the crown. No
one else has it. No one else has ever had it.
We know that by our parliamentary democratic procedure that
nobody else should have it. If we are to believe in the theory
of taxation and representation this House and this House alone
retains for itself the right to pass these things.
Therefore I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to set aside the minister's
arguments that this is a valid procedure until struck down by
a court of law.
We are asking you, Mr. Speaker, to stand up for this court and
rule accordingly.
The President of the Treasury Board has had an overnight look at
this and has come back with some argument on it, and that is good.
Mr. Speaker, you have now heard from both sides.
I could go through some of the comments the President of the
Treasury Board made but I do not think I want to duplicate
anything and I believe my colleague from St. Albert has done a
very good job on that. However, I want to make two observations
on the differences in the argument.
For instance, the minister said he was not seeking new
authority, he was seeking supply. We maintain that there is no
legislated authority to seek supply for, and that is the big
substantive difference in this argument.
Mr. Speaker, I think all the way through the argument that was
put to you by the government side, notwithstanding what the
minister said, he needs to get the Canadian information office,
for instance, established before seeking supply. Therein lies
the problem with the vote tonight. We are being asked to supply
before we legislate. It cannot be. This party cannot vote for
such an approach.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you deliberate and look
at this today and decide prior to the votes tonight you remove
those items that are in fact illegal. Give us an opportunity to
approve or at least vote for the items that we feel perhaps could
pass that test. There is a very important test today that you
are being asked by the official opposition to apply and look at.
On the second comment that we should have redrafted the
estimates because the government after an election has new
priorities, I suggest that if we did that we would be committing
the sins that the opposition is reproaching us for which is that
before having legislative approval in the House we would be
redrafting the estimates to show what our new priorities are
before they have been implemented through legislation approved by
the House. Therefore, although I agree that the estimates should
be drafted in the most appropriate manner possible, I submit they
are at present drafted in the right way until new legislation has
been approved by the House.
On the point that this House is the highest court of the land, I
would not oppose the argument. I would merely submit that when
we have an order in council that gives the authority for a
program to be implemented, that order in council remains as the
legal authority until it is repealed or set aside and until
Parliament perhaps, if it is the highest court in the land,
declares that it is illegal. Until that point, that order in
council is a valid basis for a vote to include supply.
My last point about the information office is exactly that. The
information office must be established first before seeking
supply. I submit that the information office has been
established. It was established by order in council. We and our
lawyers believe that the order in council is valid. Once again it
is held to be valid as the authority for establishing a program
until it is repealed or set aside, which it has not been.
Therefore the vote that deals with the information office is also
under the authority of an order in council that is still valid
and therefore means the creation of a proper information office
for which we can seek supply because the information office has a
legislative basis.
It is my intention to rule on this. If it is at all possible, I
will rule on this before the votes take place this afternoon.
That is my intention right now.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill would simply establish an all
party committee that would have the power to travel to all
provinces and territories of this country to consult the Canadian
people on various forms of proportional representation that could
be mixed into our current system and to study the various forms
of proportional representation.
The committee would report back to the House and with the
concurrence of the House cause a national referendum to be held
where the people themselves could choose between the current
single member constituency electoral system that we have and the
method of proportional representation to be mixed into that
system as recommended by the House of Commons through that
committee.
I believe this would allow the people's votes to be reflected
accurately in the House of Commons which is not the case today.
It is really a new democracy for a new millennium.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill
which will amend the Broadcasting Act, specifically the
broadcasting policy section.
The bill as presented today is the same bill that was introduced
in the 35th Parliament and as subsequently amended by the Senate.
It has received the support of the Minister for Canadian
Heritage as stated in the House last spring. The bill will simply
give consumers the right to say no to cable company services,
something that consumers have wanted as evidenced most recently
by the unfair practices of Videotron in the Montreal marketplace.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by indicating that
this bill is inspired by an act that has been in existence in the
United States since 1977, called the community reinvestment act.
The purpose of this bill is to require banks to reach, to all
intents and purposes, a better balance between the deposits they
receive and the loans they make, particularly where disadvantaged
communities are concerned.
I hope this bill will receive unanimous consent in this House.
That section 43 of the Criminal Code states that every school
teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is
justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or a
child who is under his care if the force does not exceed what is
reasonable under the circumstances.
That section 43 recognizes the primary role of parents in
raising and disciplining their children.
That the federal government is under pressure from various
sources, including the United Nations to remove section 43
because we ratified the UN convention on the rights of the child.
That the removal of section 43 would strengthen the role of
bureaucrats while weakening the role of parents in determining
what is in the best interests of children and therefore would be
a major and unjustified intrusion by the state into the realm of
parental rights and responsibilities.
That despite its stated intent to preserve section 43 at this
time, the government continues to fund research by people who
advocate for its removal and will be facing Senate Bill S-14
which calls for the repeal.
Your petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of
parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and to retain section 43.
In the first Oral Question Period, I asked the Prime Minister
if he would be putting the Calgary Declaration to the people of
Quebec. He said he might, and, quite honestly, I was satisfied
with his response.
I understand it is not easy for the Prime Minister to stand up
to Mr. Bouchard and his separatist acolytes. As the Prime Minister
has spent his political career humouring and appeasing the
separatists, he was displaying his exceptional leadership skills
when he said he might put the Calgary Declaration to Quebeckers.
Two months have passed since the Prime Minister said in the
early days of this Parliament that he would perhaps put the Calgary
Declaration to the people of Quebec. I have remained patient only
because I thought perhaps the Prime Minister needed time to discuss
the idea with his advisors. I thought maybe he needed time to
formulate a plan.
Did he put the time to good use? No. Instead of formulating
a plan for submitting the Calgary Declaration to Quebeckers, he
simply pretended it was not necessary to consult them. Why bother
consulting the people of Quebec on the Calgary Declaration, when
they already know what it is about and already support the
constitutional proposal?
Why waste all that money holding public consultations in
Quebec and risk displeasing the separatists, when you know already
what Quebeckers think about the issue? That is the message the
Prime Minister was sending to Canadians.
Finally, on October 3, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs said in this House that the Calgary Declaration had support
from British Columbia to Newfoundland.
I found it strange when the Globe and Mail reported on September 29 that
a public poll showed that Quebeckers did not even understand the Calgary
declaration.
Quebeckers do not know whether or not the expression “unique
character” means the same thing as “distinct society”. They are not sure
whether the Calgary declaration would give them the same powers, fewer
powers or more powers. Yet, according to the Hon. Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Quebeckers strongly support the declaration.
I think it would be better to consult with the people of Quebec on
this before stating that they support it. And the Quebeckers I spoke to
agree with me.
On October 31, nearly a month after questioning the Prime Minister
about public consultations, I asked him if he had any concrete plans for
consultations in Quebec.
The reply I got was that the government still had no plans in that
respect. One month later, the government did not even have a plan.
At that time, all the provinces and territories, except Quebec,
were conducting public consultations or in the process of planning and
preparing for consultations. Only Quebec was not in on this, and the
government was still dragging its feet.
I looked at the public consultation plans of the provinces and
territories. In fact, members of the Reform Party actively encourage
their constituents to participate in these consultations. We want
Canadians to take charge of their country's future. I had hoped that the
Prime Minister would want Quebeckers to do the same, but this seems to
be the least of his worries.
Since I am a particularly persistent man, on November 19, I asked
the Prime Minister again—for the third time—whether he would be
putting the Calgary declaration to the people of Quebec and respecting
their democratic right to participate in constitutional consultations
which are likely to change the face of this country.
Here is what the Prime Minister replied: “We are not saying that we
will not hold consultations in Quebec but at the same time we are not
saying that we will”.
After nearly two months, the Prime Minister has nothing to say
and Canadians are losing patience.
We must not let the Calgary declaration fail through
negligence. If it does not capture the interest of Canadians, if
it is incapable of defining and embodying the future values and
visions of Canadians, it will have failed for good reason. But if
it fails because the people of Quebec do not view it as a
constitutional proposal that they have helped to forge and that
reflects their desire for greater autonomy, then it will have
failed because of the negligence of this government.
The people of Quebec deserve to be heard. I therefore urge
the Prime Minister to set aside petty political considerations and
to consult the people of Quebec without delay. I urge the Prime
Minister and the Liberal caucus to support this motion.
Has the member consulted with his constituents of
Edmonton—Strathcona? In the last election campaign that
position was not put forward by the Reform or the people who
supported his party.
Has he consulted with his constituents? If he has, what is
their answer? If the answer is not in support of the motion, is
it a fact that he would then vote against it?
To address his question, I had a town hall meeting. I consulted
a number of people in my riding on the issue. There are
different feelings about the Calgary declaration. That is fine.
My colleagues in caucus and I have encouraged various people
with different opinions on the Calgary declaration to actually
communicate them to their provincial governments through this
public consultation process. Once the public consultation
process is over we will know exactly how the people of Canada
feel about it. Then we as a political party can act on their
feelings.
As the motion stands, we are only clarifying and encouraging
Canadians to take part in what we feel is a very important part
of the future of the country.
As I read the member's motion I felt a couple of things were
missing but one in particular. Toward the end of the last
parliament one of our members, Len Hopkins from Renfrew, the dean
of the last parliament, sponsored a private member's bill, Bill
C-441, an act respecting the territorial integrity of Canada.
He goes on and on to indicate that Canada is a sovereign state,
one and indivisible.
In the spirit of open debate, would the member consider
including an amendment in his motion that would take in that
member's private member's bill?
I would like to clarify that I am in favour of what he just
mentioned and the fact that Canada is indivisible. I agree
wholeheartedly with that private member's bill in the last
parliament.
In this motion I tried to emphasize the importance of the
Calgary declaration that is being considered right now as we
speak. It is important for Canadians to take the time to
participate in the process. It is a short process. Most
provinces are winding up the process by mid-February.
Although I am in favour of what the member just put forward it
is important, instead of clouding it up with other issues, to
stick to the content of the Calgary declaration.
I encourage my constituents who may have the same concern to
include it in their comments as they submit them to the
provincial government. I thank the hon. member for his question.
I begin by telling the House what the Official Opposition has
done so far to promote public awareness and discussion of the
Calgary declaration.
We have circulated two letters to more than 4,400 municipal
councils in Canada encouraging them to get involved in the
process. That is the first order of government, the level of
government closest to the people.
We have circulated copies of the Calgary declaration to
municipal leaders on demand. We have circulated letters to all
the premiers encouraging them to get involved with the municipal
leaders in discussions. We have asked the prime minister to make
a copy of the Calgary declaration available to every household in
Quebec. We have posted a copy of the Calgary declaration on the
website of the Reform Party of Canada, www.Reform.ca, including
an analysis and survey.
Some questions need to be raised about what the government is
doing at this point in time. What leadership has the prime
minister taken to involve Quebeckers in awareness and discussion
of the Calgary declaration?
Another question needs to be raised. What has the prime
minister done to involve municipal leaders in the unity
discussion coming out of the Calgary declaration?
I would like to elaborate on some of these points. I will begin
by addressing the issue of municipalities, governments that are
part of the main stakeholders in the Canadian unity debate.
Canadians are looking for leaders who will work in positive ways
to strengthen and to unify the Canadian federation. There is no
doubt that many of my former municipal colleagues in the House,
and there are at least 60 of them, believe that the
municipalities should be heard and taken into account.
Municipal governments provide direct service to citizens. No
one understands the real issues related to serving the public at
that level as they do. It is long overdue that the federal
government recognize municipal governments as legitimate entities
in their own right.
I reiterate that in 1996 the current prime minister in Calgary,
at a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
acknowledged the importance of municipalities. He indicated that
he would do something more than just acknowledge them as an
entity and their own rights. We are still waiting for that to
occur.
As a newly elected member of Parliament and as Official
Opposition deputy critic on national unity for municipalities, I
want to make sure that municipalities are involved in building a
better and more united Canada.
During the last federal election national unity emerged as a key
issue, certainly in my riding. Federalists across Canada,
regardless of political affiliation, were disturbed by the near
failure of the federalist side during the last Quebec referendum
campaign. There is a deepening conviction among more and more
Canadians that a positive resolution to the unity issue requires
a two pronged approach.
One is a vigorous, inspiring and far-sighted vision for making
federalism work better, a vision of a 21st century Canada which
appeals deeply to all Canadians, including Quebeckers. This
vision must reconcile and integrate the values and aspirations of
importance to Canadians in every part of our country and at every
level of government.
Second, a well defined, federal contingency plan for dealing
with another referendum on sovereignty and/or a declaration of
independence by Quebec. This plan must be made clear in advance
of any decision on such matters and what the consequences would
be for Quebec and Canada as a whole.
The Reform Party of Canada, which now forms the official
opposition in this House, is committed 100% to the task of
building a better and more united Canada, a Canada that includes
Quebec as a full, essential partner.
Specifically, we have committed to co-operating not only with
federal and provincial governments but also with Canadian
municipal governments to help develop a vision for a better
Canada and to propose alternatives where these are needed,
including in Quebec.
Over the last six years as a municipal official, it was my
privilege to visit and speak to many municipalities across this
country. It is my conviction that public support is growing for
a new non-constitutional effort designed to strengthen the unity
of this country and that such an effort should focus on defining
a vision of a better Canada which includes the following five
elements.
First, a stronger commitment from the federal government to the
equality of citizens and provinces in law.
Second, a rebalancing of the federal and provincial powers to
meet the demands of the 21st century that take into account the
responsibilities of municipalities as the governments closest to
the people.
Third, ensuring this rebalancing equips each province with the
tools required to protect and develop the unique features of
their economies and societies.
Fourth, reform the institutions of Parliament and the federal
system to make them more effective and accountable to the
representation of local, regional and public interests.
Fifth, ensure genuine consultations with the public involving
them in any major changes to the federation.
Municipalities are putting forth resolutions that will reconcile
and integrate the principles and values of equality, uniqueness,
balance of powers, effective representation and public
involvement which go a long way toward defining the vision that
Canadians are looking for to strengthen and unite the country.
I do not have time to read the many letters that I have received
from municipalities across Canada, but I will at this time
indicate the meat of the letter that I sent to the premiers on
September 18 which reads “Municipal leaders across Canada are
already making clear that they have a stake in the future of our
country. Municipal governments frequently refer to themselves as
the first order of government, the government closest to the
people. Could we encourage municipal leaders to participate and
hold town hall style meetings in each community open to residents
of the communities with the assistance of facilitators. The
information will be provided by the provincial governments with
input from experts, including the participation of local MLAs,
MPPs and MNAs. The key advantage of such a process and mechanism
is the opportunity to transcend political partisan loyalties over
commitments. This is the kind of leadership I believe Canadians
are looking for.”
I would like to close by saying that Canada is a federal union
of provinces and territories and Canada desires a balanced
federation where provinces and citizens enjoy equal status before
the constitution and the law of Canada. Canadians nationally and
in each province and territory desire a country with better jobs,
with brighter prospects for their children, with better health
care, with more responsible and efficient government services,
lower taxes, greater individual freedoms and more open and
accountable government institutions.
Therefore, the Government of Canada and the provinces should
pursue only policies and legislation which express the
aspirations of Canadians to build a better Canada, more equal and
united from sea to sea.
I would like to ask the hon. member if, in his opinion,
constitutional changes indicating whether municipalities should
come under provincial or federal jurisdiction are required. Does
the hon. member think changes are required?
The reality of history is that municipal governments existed
long before the federal system came into being, way before
confederation came about. Even though the provinces always
elaborate and keep saying the municipal governments are the
creatures of the provinces, they have taken a very paternalistic
approach to the relationship between provinces and
municipalities, it is high time we have a little more equality
among all three levels.
I find it somewhat disconcerting that he seems to claim that, since
municipalities are the level of government closest to the public, they
should be the ones doing the consultations. They should be the ones
reviewing the agreement—the term “agreement” is used, but it is
saying a lot about a piece of paper signed in Calgary, since there is
absolutely no agreement in it, only proposals made with everybody's
input. Is the hon. member really saying that municipalities should be
the ones consulting people on this meaningless piece of paper?
What I find even more disconcerting is the question from the Quebec
MP who asked the member whether he thinks municipalities should come
under federal jurisdiction. The Reform member says that everything is on
the table and that this may be an opportune time to consider such an
option.
I should remind the hon. member that municipalities are created by
legislative assemblies—the National Assembly in Quebec's case.
According to the Canadian Constitution, not our constitution, not the
constitution we never accepted, but the Constitution of 1867, they come
under provincial jurisdiction. It is not up to the municipalities to
examine or decide whether an agreement or a piece of paper such as the
Calgary declaration is good or not.
I find it strange that the Reform member, and the member who tabled
the motion, are concerned about Quebec and the consultation process,
given that, according to the media, the consultation in their own part
of the country, in their own province, is a phoney consultation in which
practically no one is interested or involved.
I would appreciate it if the hon. member could comment on my
remarks.
I think the object here is to encourage provincial governments
to seek the assistance of municipalities to get into the milieu
of discussion. The downfall of the last attempts with Canadian
unity was the lack of grassroots involvement. If the hon. member
believes in accountability to the people who elected and sent him
to Ottawa, then I believe that the municipal governments and the
citizens who live there and pay taxes are equally as important as
the people who sit in the legislature at the provincial level.
Canadian unity is not a partisan issue. We have our disagreements
on how this country should be governed, and it is normal in a democracy
that there be a liberal approach, a social-democratic approach, a
conservative approach and a reform approach, or whatever we choose to
call it.
What is important, however, is that we all work together for the unity
of Canada.
The premiers have proposed principles that can gain the support of
all Canadians, and as such can strengthen our unity. The Calgary
declaration is not the only part to Canadian unity, but it is an
important one to show that Quebeckers, just like Albertans, just like
all Canadians, share values and can look forward to the next century
with a shared purpose rather than in a spirit of division. That is the
objective of this declaration.
It is a wonderful declaration because it shows that in Canada,
perhaps more than in any other country, we know that equality is not the
same thing as uniformity. Equality is an important value that is being
pursued further in Canada than anywhere else, along with diversity,
which is also an important value, and this country finds its strength in
diversity. Diversity is not at all at issue; it is a strength, and these
two values go together.
That diversity covers various features. There is of course the
bilingual character of the country; there is the multicultural character
of the country, there is the contribution made by aboriginal peoples,
and there is the Quebec society, which is in a unique situation in North
America, for reasons on which everyone can agree.
What is also new in the Calgary declaration is the fact that it is
clearly stated that no special status is being created for anyone. All
provinces have equal status. Either they are provinces or they are not.
If they are provinces, equality of status always applies, but
recognition of the equal status of the provinces should not prevent, in
fact it should promote, taking into consideration the particular
circumstances of each province, because we have a very diverse country,
and circumstances in Alberta are not in many respects the same as those
in Nova Scotia.
One province is totally unique by virtue of its majority
language, its culture, its civil code, its own institutions, and
that province is Quebec. There can be recognition of this
province's unique situation without creating a situation of
inequality compared to the others, merely by stating that
everything to be given to one province, in light of its particular
situation, must also be available to the others if they should
require it.
Quebeckers are not jealous people. They do not want anything
for themselves that others would not be able to have. They simply
want assurance that, in this decentralized federation, their
identity and their way of being Canadians “à la Québecoise” can be
reinforced in the coming century with the assistance of other
Canadians.
Other Canadians, Albertans and citizens from other provinces,
are not jealous people either. They are not saying that since
they do not need it, they do not want Quebeckers to have it. They
just said that anything that is available for a province must be
available for the provinces because this is equality.
It is in this way that we have reconciled the values of
diversity and equality. We must commend all the premiers for
having done that and we must support them.
I am very pleased to see how in this House the parties that
believe in Canada speak with one voice. We support those
principles.
I want to quote a great Canadian, a key Canadian for this very
moment in our history coming from the province of the hon.
member. “I believe in a Canada where all provinces have equal
status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to protect those things
that make it such a unique part of our national character. do not
think those two principles cancel each other out. The Canada I am
describing might be familiar to many because most of us grew up
here in the tolerant and diverse nation where we are equal as
Canadians no matter where we live, but where the word equality is
not used as a blanket to smother diversity.”
I agree with that fully. That is exactly the spirit of the
Calgary declaration which was stated last spring, well before the
Calgary declaration, by Premier Ralph Klein. So it is not a
partisan matter.
We are with premier Klein and with all the premiers, in this
initiative which is aimed at enhancing our key values.
As the Leader of the Opposition said recently, Alberta political
leaders have chosen to act as big westerners, not little
westerners on this issue.
I am very proud to share this country with the hon. member from
Alberta. We will fight together to make sure that we will stay
fellow citizens. Whatever arguments we may have about social,
economic and criminal policies, we will have the pleasure of
fighting together in the same country.
We are are having a disagreement right now which is not a
fundamental one. It is a disagreement about how to speak to
Quebeckers at this very moment. It is not fundamental but it is
something we have to discuss. I am happy that this discussion
will occur today.
The point of view of the government today is that it is too soon
for that. As the member from the Bloc said, it is not so easy to
consult with people even in a province where a premier like
Premier Klein is strongly supporting the resolution of the
Calgary declaration. It is not easy because when people get up
in the morning it is not their first preoccupation to listen to a
debate about this declaration.
It does not mean that people do not support it. In fact, if
they were strongly against it the likelihood that they would rush
to these kinds of consultations would be greater. However, I
think they support the principles.
I know that polls are polls, but what is interesting are the
polls that are compared with the ones we had in Charlottetown or
Meech. When we go into the details of the declaration, the
support is even greater for the declaration in Quebec.
When Quebeckers are asked “Do you support the Calgary
declaration?”, the support is there, but not strong support. When
they are asked “Do you support citizen equality?”, there is very
strong support. When they are asked “Do you support the equality of
status of the provinces?”, there is strong support. And when they
are asked “Do you support the recognition of Quebec's unique
character?”, there is very strong support.
In other words, the more detail there is given on the
declaration, the more people support it, and this is grounds for
considerable optimism, even if the process of consultation in those
provinces whose premiers support the process is not as easy as some
would believe. People are not rushing to share their points of
view, but there are still grounds for considerable optimism.
Where are we headed with all this? It is desirable for the
premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial leaders who
believe in a powerful united Canada, coming out of these
consultations, to be able to find sufficient public support to
enable them to submit to their respective parliaments a statement
of principle, which will no doubt be fairly close to the Calgary
declaration and will show the extent to which Canadians do, in
fact, share the same values. This will lead to declarations by the
legislatures.
It will not be a constitutional act. We are not speaking about
the Constitution now. It is a declaration of principles that
shows that yes, we share values. If one day we are ready,
especially if there is a premier in Quebec who believes in
Canada, we will see if there is still support among the people
for something that would be a more legal document that we may
consider putting in the Constitution.
The approach that we have with the support of the Leader of the
Opposition and all the leaders in the House who believe in Canada
and who support the step by step approach is something great and
I am very proud to do it with all my colleagues in the House who
believe in Canada.
The minister will know that many people, particularly in western
Canada, continue to be concerned about the singling out of the
unique character of Quebec society in the fifth clause of the
Calgary declaration. The concern is that this will be the seed
of a new distinct society interpretive justiciable clause which
could create two categories of provinces in Canada.
I wonder if the hon. minister could address that concern. Is it
a legitimate concern? How would he respond to the view that
recognizing the unique character of Quebec society in some way
derogates from the equality of all provinces?
It has been very clear since the beginning that with an
interpretive clause, first, you cannot override what is clear in
the Constitution. It is something which helps to interpret the
Constitution when the Constitution is not clear.
Second, it cannot give to one province more powers or privileges
than it gives to other provinces.
In order to be sure that it is very clear that this is not
special status, what the Calgary declaration added is the
principle stating that if any future constitutional amendment
confers powers on one province, those powers must be available to
all provinces.
That is already what we are doing. We could take the example of
the manpower training agreements which we are negotiating with
the provinces. Alberta and Quebec have decided to use all the
powers which the agreements give them, but Newfoundland did not
feel that it needed them, so there will be co-management with
Newfoundland. Newfoundland will not have full autonomy in this
field.
What is important is that everything is available for everyone.
This is equality and we are committed to ensure that this will
always be the case.
I would like to hear what the minister has to say in response
to three questions I have. First, what does he think of the
statement by Mike Harris, who trivialized the concept of unique
character to the point of describing it in terms of Pacific salmon?
Second, what does he think of the report in this morning's
papers that only 4% of Albertans know about the Calgary
declaration, that a televised report revealed last week that some
people thought it concerned a labour dispute and that others did
not know there was such a declaration? How can he preach ethics to
us, when the people of Alberta, the people voting for the Reform
Party, are not aware of the Calgary declaration?
How can he say that they are not speaking up probably because
they support it? I would like him to explain his remarks. If
people are unaware of something and they do not talk about it, it
is probably because they agree with it. That is what he said.
On the subject of the powers to be given to everyone, not just
Quebec, I would ask him to list the powers that will be given to
Quebec and the other provinces in Canada as the result of the
Calgary declaration.
However, it would reflect the values on which this country must
build. One of these values is certainly ensuring that each constituent
part of this country can develop on the basis of its own identity and
particular values. We know how important this is to Quebec. I gave the
example of occupational training, which is but one example.
Here is another example. Bijuralism is an asset to Canada. It is a
great advantage to have two legal systems in Canada, and so is having
two official languages.
But this bijuralism needs to be strengthened, especially now that we are
expanding our relations with countries whose legal culture is different
from ours, and this ability to understand two different legal cultures,
based on the fact that we have two in our country, gives us an advantage
on countries where there is only one legal tradition.
We have decided, and I will close with this, to better harmonize
federal legislation with the Quebec civil code. This will be very good
for Quebeckers and for all Canadians.
First of all, we are discussing this issue today following an
initiative by the Reform Party, which wants Parliament to endorse the
Calgary declaration. It also wants to blame the Government of Quebec for
not holding consultations on the Calgary declaration. Behind all of
this, we can also see that the Reform Party is starting to look for a
way out, on this issue.
There are four aspects I would like to deal with quickly: Why the
Calgary declaration, the consultation process, the absence of
consultations in Quebec, and, finally, the reasons behind the Reform
Party's initiative.
Why the Calgary declaration? I have to go quickly and I will not
have enough time in ten minutes to cover all the history behind this,
but I will point out some main events. It should be remembered that
following patriation in 1982 of the Constitution, which was not signed
by Quebec and where Quebec was isolated, attempts were made to remedy
this extraordinary error by the Liberal Party of Canada, but also with
several premiers, some of whom are still around today.
Later, Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, and Robert
Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, tried in their own way to resolve this
issue.
Their argument was “Quebec has to be brought back in with honour and
dignity”. As we all know, this led to the Meech Lake accord, which
failed, and then there was the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected
by the population. I do not want to spend too much time on these events
that have been dealt with at length by others. This led to the arrival
in the federal Parliament of regional parties, a trend that was
maintained following the last federal election.
But above all, this led to the 1995 referendum. Very often,
federalists forget to mention that there were two referendums in Quebec,
even three. In 1992, Quebeckers refused to endorse the Charlottetown
accord, by which Quebec would have signed the patriation of the
Constitution under the Charlottetown conditions. We must always remember
that Quebeckers said that no, under those conditions, they would not
sign. This is an important issue in this debate.
It seems that federalists have a selective memory and that they forget
that episode.
In 1995, with a participation rate of over 93%, 49.5% of the
population voted yes on the proposal for the sovereignty of Quebec
accompanied by a offer to form a partnership with the rest of Canada.
In a panic, faced with this result, Ottawa did not know exactly how
to react and took a hard line, with everything that implied under plan
B, to attack Quebec, to make people think that the question was not
understood, nor the issues, and everything else, and to come up with the
greatest scare tactics that were ever used, on territory, etc.
In fact, we know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
now the leader of the partitionist movement in Quebec. He is spreading
the idea everywhere, not just in Quebec, but outside the province too.
All this led provincial premiers to say “We must do something”. But how
can they do something when they have hardly any room to manoeuvre, when
just about everything has been tried in the negotiations that led to
Meech and Charlottetown? Still, they feel they must do something
symbolic because there will be an election in Quebec and, should the
Parti Quebecois win, another referendum will be held.
Under the circumstances, the premiers decided to find a way to
send a message to Quebec to the effect that they may be prepared
to do something to please Quebeckers, because they do not
want—and the Calgary exercise is primarily the result of this
concern—the federalist party in Quebec, that is the Quebec
Liberal Party, going into an election campaign with nothing but a
promise to renew federalism and no concrete measures to support
it.
So, the idea is to create the illusion that there will be a follow-up
to this promise. That is why the premiers took a piece of paper on
which they wrote great principles. The Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs himself said earlier, among other things, that should the
agreement become part of the Constitution, these values would guide us
in an eventual decentralization of power and so on. At the rate things
are going, we better not hold our breath, because it could take a long
time before anything comes out of this. The minister also talked about
manpower training, which is a prime example of federalism at work, given
that it took over 30 years to come up with a solution. This
administrative agreement may be short-lived, because we never know what
the federal government may decide.
Furthermore, we, as members of Parliament working in their
ridings, know that the federal government is launching all kinds of
youth training initiatives, but that it does not even respect the
spirit or the lofty values by which it says it is guided. It
obviously has no interest in them whatsoever, nor in that
agreement. This is not a lofty principle, but a small
administrative agreement to fool people into thinking that this
system can evolve, can change.
But I do not want to look like the only one criticizing the
Calgary declaration, so I am going to quote from a number of
newspaper articles I have come across recently.
I will start with Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir, who gives a bit of
the context in which the Calgary declaration was arrived at, and I
quote “It confirms, nonetheless, that the stumbling blocks of the
past are still with us and are crystallizing into three points that
have always been viewed as essential in Quebec circles that believe
in the renewal of federalism”. And these three points are: the
concept of political pact between two peoples, constitutional
recognition of the distinct character of Quebec and its real
significance, and the division of power between the two levels of
government.
She goes on to explain that there has been failure on all
three counts. But I know that members opposite will say that Ms.
Bissonnette is a nasty separatist, a sovereignist and whatnot. I
will therefore continue.
One of the best articles, headlined “A path filled with
pitfalls”, is by Alain Dubuc—whom one cannot classify as a
sovereignist unless he has undergone a recent conversion, and if so
someone should let us know. Allow me to quote from this article:
Alain Dubuc himself says that we need to watch what happens
elsewhere before we voice an opinion ourselves.
1135
The text probably never made it to the Power
Corporation office.
I have here another article headlined “Bones without flesh:
Jonathan Sauvé urges his party to be wary of the Calgary
declaration”.
Who is Jonathan Sauvé? He is the president of the Quebec Liberal Party
youth commission, who made this statement a few days after the Calgary
declaration was issued. I hope he will stand by this statement during
the provincial election.
“Bones without flesh”. “The Calgary
declaration: opening or setback?”. This is followed by a quote from
Claude Ryan, saying that the declaration reflects mistrust of Quebec.
This is Claude Ryan, the former Quebec Liberal Party leader, who is not
known to be a staunch sovereignist either.
There is also this document in which the Government of Newfoundland
clarifies what is at stake, and the minister was quite clear on this,
but I would like him to repeat this everywhere he goes.
The answer is found in this guide being distributed to the public.
The word “distinct” is reminiscent of earlier discussions. In many
parts of Canada, it has taken a negative meaning. In addition,
“distinct” conveys the idea of “separate”, which goes against
unity.
On the other hand, the expression “unique character”
suggests something that is special but does not adversely affect
unity. Accordingly, the expression “unique character” more
accurately conveys what we mean.
These people want to play on words. If they want to recognize
Quebec for what it is, why do they feel the need to get into a semantics
debate to decide what word to use, if not because there is a degree of
distrust, fear, apprehension and hesitation in many places?
Mr. Speaker, I know you are about to interrupt me, so I will
conclude this part of my speech and then I will answer questions.
Let me briefly touch on the motivation of the Reform Party, which
calls on their constituents to make sure this never happens by way of a
constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness. They are
telling their supporters to express their views on this.
Now their leader is saying that Senate reform should be included in
there somewhere. Preston Manning is looking for a way out and trying to
put the blame on Quebeckers because they are not holding consultations.
That is what we are witnessing today and we will be discussing what
their real intentions are throughout the day.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to come up with a speech more deplorable than
the one we have just heard on this subject.
Choosing passages that suit the member from documents
supporting the Calgary declaration in general terms—
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Talk about the 4 per cent in Alberta.
Hon. Stéphane Dion: He made no mention of scholarly papers
like the one prepared by professor Benoît Pelletier explaining why
the declaration is good for Quebeckers. No, it is too long. I
have little to say.
I would like to point out some fairly elementary mistakes.
Earlier, the hon. member said that only 4 per cent of Albertans
were aware of the Calgary declaration. In fact, 4 per cent
responded to the questionnaire.
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I chose
passages from people who support the Calgary declaration. As far
as I know, Alain Dubuc's editorial—I will send him a copy—contained
little support for the Calgary declaration.
Ms. Bissonnette did not appear to be giving much support to
the Calgary declaration. Jonathan Sauvé of the Liberal Party did
not give it much support either. I will send him a copy because I
imagine he has some free time and that he will take the time to
read it in between two speeches on separation.
As regards what is happening in Alberta and the fact that a
number of people responded, I remember a report we heard on a CBC
radio station. They were doing man-in-the-street interviews in
Alberta.
Of ten or twelve people, two or three thought it involved a labour
dispute, the others had no idea what they were talking about and
knew nothing about the Calgary declaration.
That said, before we go calling that support, let us wait and
see. I suggest he be prudent, because he knows very well that,
before it gets support in Alberta and B.C., the Calgary declaration
would have to be put to a referendum if it were to become a
constitutional amendment. Then there would be a real debate, and
I am sure that the minister and many members of his government
would find the results most surprising.
1140
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member began and ended his remarks by saying that people
in Quebec and the rest of Canada do not know what is in the
Calgary declaration. If that is the case, that is why we are
recommending in point four of our motion that the government and
members communicate with Quebeckers regarding the Calgary
declaration and consult the people of Quebec on its contents.
We all know very well the hon. member's secessionist views.
Notwithstanding, does he think it is within the interest of well
informed public debate in Quebec on this matter to take steps to
inform Quebeckers about the content of the Calgary declaration,
or does he want to leave them in the dark? What is he trying to
hide from Quebeckers with respect to the content of the
declaration?
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Mr. Speaker, in 1995, barely two years ago—and
these people do not know, because they are told all sorts of things by
the federal government—a consultation process was held through the
commissions on the future of Quebec. The process was criticized by this
government, which claimed that it was a phoney consultation from which
nothing would come out. Yet, during these consultations in Quebec, more
testimonies were heard than in the best consultation process under way
on the Calgary declaration. So, I hope they will reconsider, apologize
and recognize that the process was in fact a great democratic exercise
in Canada.
This being said, the ball is clearly in the federalist camp. In the
last referendum, 49.5% of Quebeckers voted in favour of sovereignty,
along with a partnership offer. It is not true that Quebec will now
support meaningless proposals that have no constitutional value and that
are simply meant to gain support for Daniel Johnson in the next
election. Federalists want the Quebec government to go along with this
so they can ultimately put the blame on Quebec by saying “in any case,
Quebeckers do not want it. Therefore, we will not support it because
they do not want it”.
Federalists from all parties and from the other Canadian provinces
should start by agreeing among themselves. They should act while Quebec
is still a province, because the countdown has begun. Let them agree on
a substantial offer to Quebec and then we may have a debate.
Otherwise, in the next referendum, people will have to choose between
the insignificant Calgary declaration and its principles—some people
even trivialized Quebeckers' unique character by comparing it to Pacific
salmon—and sovereignty with a partnership offer. I am pretty sure
which one of these two options will prevail.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I just listened to the member from the Bloc. It reinforces why
it is important for all of us who believe in Canada and want to
see Canada remain united in the future to get our act together
and to be able to say something to Quebec that will be
acceptable, if not to the hon. member who just spoke, which is
unlikely, then to a great majority of Quebeckers who may wish to
stay in Canada if they feel the rest of Canada is in a position
to offer them the possibility of a relationship that satisfies
both their own self-understanding and a vision of Canada that is
acceptable inside Quebec and outside Quebec.
I welcome the motion by the Reform Party. I welcome the news
that the government intends to support it. Certainly the New
Democratic Party also intends to support the motion.
One of the reasons for doing that is the need to show that in
spite of differences which may exist from time to time on other
issues, and indeed from time to time on the constitution, on the
unity file, there is the possibility of coming together on this
day in support of this resolution.
I hoped this would be a foreshadowing of future events in which
we could come together around something more substantial, either
the Calgary declaration as it stands or the Calgary declaration
as amended or as followed up on in respect of other concerns that
have been raised and will be raised in the course of the
consultation.
The very nature of consultation, it seems to me, is that one is
open, and I presume the premiers are open, to suggestions on how to
approve the declaration or how to move beyond the declaration in
ways that address very legitimate concerns that have been raised.
1145
The first one that comes to my mind is the concern raised by the
aboriginal leadership in this country, that there is wording in
the Calgary declaration which, in their judgment, does not
reflect properly their status within Canada, their
self-understanding within Canada.
I and my party share their concerns. They are not concerns that
would lead us to vote against this motion because this motion is
about the consultation process. I note that even the Reform
Party, whose members drafted this motion, are very careful not to
indicate support for the Calgary declaration. Support for the
premiers in their efforts, support for the consultation process,
yes, but if one reads the motion very carefully, as I did,
nowhere does it express support for the Calgary declaration. I
do not know whether that is intentional. It could be intentional
with good intentions. On the other hand, it could be intentional
with not so good intentions.
Perhaps future speakers from the Reform Party could indicate the
reason why. It does not necessarily vitiate one's commitments to
consultation to take a stand for oneself as to the worthiness or
unworthiness of a particular resolution.
One can then go out, consult and find that there are legitimate
criticisms, legitimate suggestions as to how it can be improved
and how those suggestions can be acted upon.
I would be interested in knowing from future Reform Party
speakers just where they stand on the Calgary declaration as
opposed to all the language of support for the process.
It seems to me, again with respect to what has been said so far
by the Reform Party in support of its motion, that much of what
the first speaker said had to do with his insistence that the
Government of Canada consult with the people of Quebec now,
immediately, yesterday, on the Calgary declaration.
I listened to the minister say that he felt that the time was
not right for that kind of consultation. I tend to agree with
the minister. I say to the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona
that I think it would be a serious mistake to go into Quebec
either through the instrument of the federal government or in
some other way to create another round of expectations if we are
not sure in the rest of Canada that we can actually say with a
certain amount of unity and a certain amount of certainty that
this is what we agreed upon.
We want to know what the people of Quebec think about this and
we want to know their opinion on this.
At some point that has to happen, obviously. If it were not to
happen, then that would be a serious mistake. When we reach that
point, I do not think we should be fearful of the provincial
government in this regard.
I think we have a right as Canadians and the federal government
has a right as the federal government to consult Quebeckers on
this issue. I do not say this out of caution or out of fear of
what the view of the Quebec government is on this.
I just offer it as a tactical reflection, if you like, that the
worst thing that could happen is one more round in which
expectations are created in Quebec and then Quebec finds one more
time that the rest of Canada really does not have its act
together and cannot agree among itself, therefore whatever
expectations would be created by going through a process in
Quebec now would be disappointed.
It seems to me that that is the point of the Calgary declaration
and the consultation process that it creates, to see if there is
enough unity in the rest of the country—outside Quebec, that
is—so that we can actually say to Quebec with some certainty
that this is how we propose to redescribe and reconfigure our
relationship with Quebec and, for that matter, reconfigure
Confederation; what do you think?
Some people may reject it, some people may accept it, but until
we are in a position to do that, I think it might be a serious
mistake to do what the hon. member has suggested.
1150
I do not quarrel with the principle. I suppose I am asking him
to reflect on the timing. Maybe it is just because I have seen
this happen before and I am worried that we may repeat the
scenario of creating expectations which cannot be met.
Having stated my reservations about what seems to be at the top
of the Reform Party agenda, which is an immediate consultation
with Quebec, I want to repeat that I doubt the wisdom of it at
this time.
I also want to say to the government that it should find a way
to meet the concerns of the aboriginal leadership in the country
which they expressed not so long ago and which I know have been
expressed personally to the minister by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine
and to the premiers as recently as last week.
Let us not get into the bind we were in before where because we
have agreed on something that we cannot agree to change it. We
need to be able to agree to change things or to follow up so that
we do not get into the corner we have been in so many times
before, unfortunately, where we have not been able to respond
appropriately to concerns that have arisen.
Finally, from a social democratic or NDP point of view, we also
say to the government though we do not offer a simplistic or
economic reductionistic view of unity in this regard, we do
however believe that part of building a strong country means
addressing the growing social and economic inequalities that
exist in this country and which are more pronounced now than they
were 20 years ago.
We cannot encourage people to think as citizens, as a community
or to think that they are all in the same boat if on the other
hand we are pursing policies which increasingly divide and
separate people into winners and losers and people who regard
themselves as part of a society that no longer cares for them.
They cannot bring themselves to care for a society that does not
care for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate
the last speaker. This is a man who is asking himself some hard
questions.
Will the Calgary declaration, which I have only examined
briefly, but which talks about the unique character of Quebec
society, be accompanied by new inputs or amendments to the existing
Constitution? If this notion of unique society were adopted in
Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, has it been proposed to Quebeckers
that this notion of Quebec's unique character be enshrined in
legislation, which would be our new Constitution, and which would
be accompanied by a change in the Senate, by a change in the
division of legislative responsibilities, or whatever? I have
heard nothing.
There is no doubt that Quebec is unique. It is unique in
speaking French. It is unique in having its own poetry. It is
unique in many of its structures.
But I would like the hon. member to tell me whether, in
Calgary or in the consultations now under way, proposals to
Quebeckers were formulated.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister
had addressed this in his remarks, but it seems to me at this
time that what we are talking about is language. My experience
of this constitutional dilemma is that it is often not the
technical legalities and not even the distribution of power that
is at the root of the problem.
It is people's level of comfort or discomfort with certain ways
of describing the country and describing Quebec's place within
the country or describing the place of the aboriginal people in
Canada and so on. We are trying to find a way of talking to each
other about ourselves that does not cause us to divide, that does
not cause us to be in conflict with each other.
1155
I see the Calgary declaration as one more attempt, because there
have been so many unsuccessful ones, to find a way of talking
about Canada in a way that meets the need in Quebec for both a
symbolic and practical recognition of their distinctiveness but
to do that in a way that does not offend against other images of
the country and understandings of the country with respect to
equality of the provinces and so on—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Colleagues, with
permission, when there is obviously a good deal of interest in
joining the debate, if we could keep our comments and questions
to about one minute and responses to a minute we would be able to
get a lot more in. Let us give that a shot.
Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I share most
of his point of view.
I will ask him if he is in agreement with the following
statement. I want to say that it is normal that there is a lot
of suspicion throughout the country. Our country has been in
this debate for 30 years now. Though some people have some
concerns it does not mean that they do not agree with the goal,
with the objective which is to say which values we all share. I
want to quote, and it will not be long.
[Translation]
“This gradual approach, which is based on consultation and
which includes the opposition parties, this desire not to set
overly ambitious goals, shows that Canada has learned from its
mistakes and wishes to put all the chances on its side so as to
avoid another failure. This is wise. The Quebec minister
responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Jacques
Brassard, simply laughed off the suggestions of other provinces,
showing clearly that his government is cutting itself off from the
people of Quebec”.
I quoted Alain Dubuc, whose remarks the member distorted
earlier.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, what happened here to me
points out what I have seen so many times and what I think is
wrong. I do not know whether the member was asking me a question
or was debating with the Bloc Quebecois. Sometimes it is hard to
tell. One becomes the presumption or the platform for another
family fight between Quebeckers. They are all in the same
family whether they like it or not. These family fights are
sometimes more vicious than the debate which goes on between the
rest of Canada and Quebec.
I would simply ask Quebec members of Parliament, and Quebeckers
whoever they might be, on whatever side they might be, to try to
rise above this tendency to always be at each other's throats and
try to take the rest of us into the debate because this is our
country too.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, before beginning and with your
leave, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to
share my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member have
the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, what is
surprising today, is that we have a motion from the Reform Party, at a
time when there is a process under way that seems to be going well, but
it is not making headlines, and Reform is once again stirring up trouble
on this issue.
1200
When a process starts to work well, the Reform Party has to stir up
trouble. Now, we have learned that the government side will join them,
and also the New Democrats.
We of the Conservative Party will be voting against this motion for
several reasons. It harbours negative sentiments. It comes from the
Reform Party, and in the House they make themselves look good, and so
on, but when we discuss with them outside the House, we realize that
they want nothing to do with Quebec and francophones. My colleague from
Brandon—Souris will be speaking shortly on the real stance of the
Reform Party on constitutional matters.
They are skillful in political and parliamentary manoeuvring in the
House, but outside of the House, over a coffee or other refreshments, we
get to see the other side of the Reform Party, and now people will know
what the Reform really stands for.
We cannot agree with this. The leader of a party cannot take on a
new image within six months. During the election campaign, we saw what
the Reform Party stood for. That same outlook is still here today, and
the party structure is the same.
We are against this motion. It is not the time for such a motion.
The process got under way in Calgary. For us, in any case, there are
other ways to make this country work rather than with constitutional
changes, with plans B, C, D, E or F. We proposed something different in
our platform,
a Canadian pact. In fact, the government will most likely borrow from
this position during coming meetings.
We do not agree with this either and we are very surprised that the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister who creates havoc
each time the Constitution is mentioned, supports this proposal. He and
his counterpart in Quebec are firing off letters to each other. They are
writing an essay on federal-provincial non-relations, on how to ensure
that these relations will not work. Now we are getting ready to go to
the supreme court for a real bout of legal and constitutional
squabbling.
Could we not come back to the basic principle of dialogue and
action? We want a federalism that is efficient and sensitive. Other
solutions can be found. We are ready to share these and to discuss them.
Let us not attempt however to go to Quebec to talk about the Calgary
process.
Quebeckers are capable of reading and understanding what it is
about.
I would like the Bloc Quebecois member who spoke earlier about
the national commissions on Quebec's future to know that I was a
commissioner. On constitutional matters, such as the Calgary
declaration or the Meech Lake accord, ask Quebeckers to name the
five conditions of the Meech Lake accord and few could do so. What
they understand is that an attempt was made to keep the country
together. So, we can let the Calgary process take its course.
In the meantime, let us try to give this country some real
solutions. We are prepared to share our ideas, as I said
earlier, including the Canadian pact. What is it? It involves—and
the people in the Bloc Quebecois will be happy and we
agree with them—respect for individual jurisdictions and an
end to overlap and duplication.
Our government is a centralizing government forever shoving its
nose in others' business. The Reform Party now wants
municipalities to come under the federal government. This is a
real mess.
What we are saying is that, without a constitutional amendment—as
our leader often points out—we can talk, meet others'
standards and respect their jurisdictions, come to mutual
agreements and, under the British parliamentary system, establish
traditions that go on to become law. So let us try to get back to
the real priorities.
The Reform Party tabled a motion this morning because they
want to screw the whole thing up. They want to stop it from
working.
That is where the problem lies. Talk to Reformers, talk to certain
MPs and their staff outside the House, and they will tell you that,
for them, Canada means no Quebec, no francophones, no
multiculturalism, no official languages. That is what the Reform
Party is all about. Just look at their web site. The Reform web
site is not even bilingual. Close to 50% of them are bilingual,
and they want to be a national party. Forget it, it just will not
work.
What we are proposing is to sit down together, respect
jurisdictions, and make the country work on an administrative
basis. Let us get back to bread and butter issues. People will
not be able to explain what the Calgary declaration is, or what
Meech Lake is, if they have no bread on the table.
Now I will give the floor over to my colleague from Brandon—Souris.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all I would like to remind my Conservative Party colleague that the
Meech Lake accord is not something I was promoting. That was an
agreement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of
Quebec. If people did not learn about the conditions of that
agreement, it is more or less their fault, not mine.
1205
When people voted in the 1995 referendum, they knew what they
were deciding on. He himself says that he was a member of the
commission on the future, which discussed the matter thoroughly.
I would like to ask him a question concerning a letter written
by his leader on the eve of the Calgary meeting. The letter states
“As I have pointed out, a successful meeting would include—and
here he names things—a draft definition of an action plan for
Canada. The statement could set out the following points: the need
to rebalance the roles and responsibilities of the federal and
provincial governments”.
He also speaks of spending power. He says “The measures
limiting this power should focus on the long term common good”. He
speaks of a reform of institutions that ought to include an
indispensable reform of the Senate.
I repeat the first phrase: “A successful meeting would include
the following”. Is the hon. member in agreement with his leader,
then, and can he conclude, as he must, that the Calgary meeting was
a failure?
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am in agreement with my
leader. I campaigned with my leader because that is what I
believed in. This letter basically repeats what was in our
election platform.
The Calgary process is one that will hopefully evolve. As for
the statements the Bloc Quebecois member attributed to my leader,
yes, I am in agreement. If we could implement the points the
member has quoted from the letter by the member for Sherbrooke, I
think the country would perhaps be in better shape. The Bloc
member knows very well that the position of my leader, the position
of the Conservative Party in Quebec, is one of the most popular
positions and one which has the potential to rally all Quebeckers.
This is something the Bloc member knows, and that is why they do
not want us to gain too much power in Quebec because they know that
the next time they will be out the door.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for sharing his
speaking time for a member and a colleague from western Canada to
speak to an issue I consider to be of utmost national
significance.
I am pleased to be in this House to see the transformation from
a cocoon to a butterfly of the Reform Party. It is now putting
forward its position on national unity. A short six months ago
the positions taken with respect to national unity by hon.
colleagues from the Reform Party were not quite as positive as
the position now being put forward in this House.
It is no secret that the Progressive Conservative Party believes
very strongly in the federation of Canada. It believes very
strongly in ten provinces and two territories. It believes this
country has everywhere to go in the future to ensure we embrace
the national unity of the federation and to make sure we have ten
solid provinces and two solid territories.
I can speak to the experience and the confidence of the leader
of our party. It was the leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party who brought this country back from the abyss. In the last
referendum he was called upon because there was no leadership
from the Liberal government. He was called upon to make sure
this country did stay together. There is a majority in Quebec
that wants to remain Canadian and it will do so.
The policy of the Progressive Conservative Party has always been
one of consultation, conciliation and understanding unlike the
policies of the Reform Party.
The Calgary declaration is embraced and accepted by the
Progressive Conservative Party. It is nice to see there is
leadership in this country beyond that of the federal Liberal
government which has not given any indication of leadership. The
premiers of the provinces had to sit down to put forward a plan,
the Calgary declaration. They had to come forward to say that
this question is of such importance we have to deal with it
ourselves without the leadership of the federal Liberal
government. I am thankful for the Calgary declaration which we
embrace and I thank the premiers.
I will discuss the Jekyll and Hyde transformation of the Reform
Party. A short six months ago during the election campaign the
Reformers stated quite emphatically that Quebeckers do not know
how to solve the unity crisis.
The motion which is before us specifies that the Reform Party
wants to consult with the people of Quebec. There is the Jekyll
and Hyde. I would like to know the motivation behind this
particular motion.
1210
I would also like to discuss distinct society and unique
society. All of a sudden it seems that Reform members have this
wonderful transformation and unique society is something they can
accept. I fought in the trenches during the last election
campaign and I can say that distinct society was a major issue.
It was an issue which the Reformers used as a cheap political
trick to push hot buttons in western Canada.
I would like to remind the House of the motives—
An hon. member: Did you support it?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, I supported distinct society and
I do now. In fact, Quebec is distinct. It is very distinct and
unique, as are all provinces of this country very distinct and
unique. There are no special powers but they are distinctive
nonetheless. We accept bilingualism. We accept the fact that
they speak a different language. We accept the fact that there
is distinctiveness in Quebec.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House an ad
campaign during the last election. The ad campaign said quite
emphatically, “Do you want any more leaders from Quebec? We do
not want any more leaders from Quebec”. This is the same party
which now wants to consult with Quebeckers about the types of
leadership we should have in this country? I think not.
I do not believe the motives of the Reform Party. I have some
serious concerns about them. As a matter of fact, a high level
staffer in the Reform Party issued in the Calgary Sun of
October 30 ten different resolutions, one which suggested
“Eliminate bilingualism and multiculturalism. With Quebec gone
the rationale for bilingualism and multiculturalism would go
too”. To me this does not speak of a resolution put forward for
consultation—
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has cited an article
dated October 30. I wonder if he could cite the year and table
the document.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member is going to table
the document, it will require unanimous consent but he is free to
answer the question, which is not a point of order.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than
happy to have this document passed on to the hon. member. It is
an article from the Calgary Sun dated October 30, 1995.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Oh, all right.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I see. Things have changed quite
dramatically since 1995.
The motives I am afraid are not acceptable to the Progressive
Conservative Party and our members will not be supporting the
resolution put forward by the Reform Party.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it unfortunate that the Tory caucus will not be
co-operating with this kind of initiative, as will the Liberal
Party and the New Democratic Party. It seems that once again the
Tories are joining their old separatist allies, the people who
kept them in power for nine years, people like Lucien Bouchard.
If that party is so strongly in favour of national unity, then
why did it have card carrying members of the Parti Quebecois
running for it in the last federal election? Is that its degree
of commitment? If the leader of the Tory party is the great hero
of the last referendum, why did he lose his own riding to the oui
side in the last referendum?
What is it that the hon. member objects to? The advertisement
to which he referred said that it is time for all Canadians to
have a voice in the national unity debate. That is exactly what
we are calling for today. By opposing this motion are they
opposed to giving all Canadians a voice on that debate? Are they
satisfied with the failure of the former Tory, Premier Bouchard's
government's failure to let Quebeckers have a say on this issue?
Why not let Quebeckers speak to the Calgary declaration?
Does the member not understand that the unique characteristics
clause in the Calgary declaration is a non-justiciable,
non-interpretive clause which is qualified by the equality
provisions riddled throughout that declaration which were
entirely absent from the failed Charlottetown and Meech accords
imposed by the top down Mulroney government?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, once again the rhetoric
coming from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is rather
enjoyable. I am sure the hon. member realizes that from a unity
perspective the Progressive Conservative government had a much
better understanding of the Quebec issues than does the Reform
Party.
As for consultation, we have always said that the consultative
process is a keystone of bringing Quebeckers into the federation
of Canada.
1215
Make no mistake. Federation in Canada is 10 provinces. No one
province is more equal than another province. We recognize in
our own policy that all provinces have to work together to make
the federation stronger.
That is what we wish to do with the province of Quebec. That is
what we wish to do with the consultative process in Quebec. We
believe very strongly in that. We do not believe in
divisiveness. We do not believe in intimidation. We do not
believe in the 20 point plan put forward in the last election
which said that it was their way or the highway.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time today with my colleague for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley.
I am pleased to stand in support of the Calgary declaration
which frameworks a national dialogue on Canadian unity. We have
come a long way in the two years since the referendum. Two years
ago in the referendum we were told not to talk, not to discuss,
and to stay out of the situation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this
important motion for two reasons. First, I indicate my support
and that of my constituents for a strong and united Canada that
is a welcoming home for the people of Quebec as well as all
Canadians.
Second, I hope to teach the government a bit of humility. Why
humility? It is for one simple reason. If our country is to be
saved it will not be by the government. It will not be by the
plans of the Prime Minister or the letters of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs or the strategies of public servants
who only a few short years ago were the architects of the
Charlottetown accord. The sooner the government accepts a bit of
humility, the sooner the real work can begin.
The people of Canada will save Canada, the men and women who
love the country and make it work every day through their work
and their faith; the 150,000 people who flooded into Montreal
during the referendum campaign to demonstrate their love of
country; and the many millions at home who held their breath
during the voting. Canadian unity hit absolute bottom that day.
As I have said in the past, if Canadians have the will and
determination we can resolve federal and provincial concerns. We
can resolve aboriginal concerns. We can resolve language
concerns. It will be an expression of popular will and not a
master plan of political manipulation that will make the
difference. The grassroots will prevail.
This is a lesson that the nine premiers and two territorial
leaders took to heart three months ago when they framed the
Calgary declaration. To their credit they realized that making a
grand statement was not the object of the exercise. Rather it
was setting up the process for consultation that was so
important.
Every province and territory, with the exception of Quebec, has
put in place a consultative mechanism so its citizens can have
their say on the principles of the Calgary declaration and the
future of their country.
This is a very important step. Through the motion we can urge
the House to endorse efforts to encourage consultation. As
parliamentarians we must use our good offices to encourage our
constituents to participate in the provincial consultation
processes. As Canadians we must make sure that all Canadians,
especially those living in Quebec, receive the very important
messages contained in the Calgary declaration. Canadians wish to
have dialogue to encourage unity discussions with all.
The Calgary declaration has some advantages over previous
efforts to renew the federation. We should be working to ensure
its success. It has the advantage of having come from the
premiers and not from Ottawa, which will give it some added
credibility in the eyes of many Canadians who remember the top
down executive federalism that produced the Meech and
Charlottetown accords. Discussions involve the people of Canada
and will have their direct input.
It has the advantage of not being a fait accompli. Instead it
signals the flexibility of the federal system in which provinces
have the freedom to exercise their powers in the way it best
suits their traditions and character.
1220
I had the pleasure to appear at a town hall discussion hosted
jointly by my provincial elected colleagues. Our open forum
discussions touched on many topics but encouraged all to send
their ideas and concepts to the Alberta legislature.
The declaration is suggesting for consideration a way of
breaking the deadlock that the phrase distinct society has
created, rightly or wrongly, by polarizing opinion on whether
Quebec should have a special status in Confederation. Distinct
society was undefined. Unique has equality qualifications.
The Calgary declaration recognizes the unique character of
Quebec's society, including its French speaking majority, its
culture and tradition, the civil law and the role that the Quebec
government and legislature have in protecting and developing this
unique character within Canada. It also recognizes the
legitimate aspirations of all provinces, the equality of their
status in Confederation and the fairness of ensuring that any
powers offered in a future constitutional amendment to one
province be available to all.
I believe Canada is blessed by the uniqueness of many areas. In
short, the Calgary declaration recognizes reality. That is what
makes it so regrettable that the Bloc Quebecois and provincial
government have not consulted Quebeckers on this important
dialogue.
The Calgary declaration emphasizes equality of people, equality
of provinces and equality of powers. If one province is
conferred powers, they ought to be available to all.
It is important we take the steps necessary to extend the
dialogue to include the people of Quebec. We call on the
government to do so in a formal manner. We ask all hon. members
to recognize their responsibilities as parliamentarians and to
speak out in favour of a strong and united Canada.
In closing, let me reiterate my support for the motion as a
member of Parliament, as an Albertan and as a Canadian. It is my
sincere hope that members of the government party will see the
wisdom of putting their energy and enthusiasm behind the success
of a Calgary initiative that does so much to encourage dialogue
with all and of voting for the motion.
It is my hope members of the Bloc Quebecois will act in the best
interest of all Quebeckers and will urge their masters in Quebec
City to let their constituents have their say. All Canadians
must have the opportunity to speak out on the unity of our great
country.
I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting immediately after the
words “equality of citizens and provinces” the following:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take the amendment
under advisement for the moment.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, during the last
election campaign, Reformers said that Quebeckers were not worthy
to run the country. When I hear that and read motions such as this
one saying that the Reform Party has made a 180 degree turn, I
cannot accept this, or the fact that they are undermining national
unity. They seem to come up with arguments valid only for the day
they are used. They are not speaking for the good of Canada as a
whole. I find this frustrating, and it worries me to see what is
developing within the Reform Party. It is something I cannot
accept.
1225
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what
the hon. member was alluding. I can only speak most assuredly
for myself. I am standing in the Chamber as a result of the last
referendum. I was in Quebec City visiting and I saw the voting
going on. It was on a plane coming back to Edmonton that I
resolved to seek out political parties on the work they were
doing for national unity.
I had discussions with several parties and the one plan I
wholeheartedly agreed with that supported national unity was that
of the Reform Party. That is when I first started working for
the Reform. I am standing here today because of the convictions
of the Reform Party and its definite interest in national unity.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to step into this disagreement between Conservative and Reform
Party colleagues.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It's all one family.
Mr. Pierre Brien: So it is. We were criticized for the same
thing earlier, but we can see that there is a family quarrel of
much greater magnitude in that corner of the House.
Before putting a question to the Reform Party member, I would
first like to explain to him that, when Quebeckers see his leader,
whose campaign advertising blamed Quebec's leaders, with everything
we know about his leader, when we see him, Jean Chrétien, and
Stéphane Dion hand in hand, this creates a lot of mistrust in
Quebec.
Furthermore, I can understand why Quebeckers feel this way.
I would like him to explain to me how they can teach us
anything about democratic spirit, when we know that there have been
three referendums in Quebec in 15 years, that various forms of
consultation were held on the constitutional issue, that we engaged
in the highly democratic exercise of referendums.
Why does he not share the view of his NDP colleague that the
ball is clearly in the federalists' court and that they should
first of all agree among themselves on what they can offer
Quebeckers? The first step before any consultation of Quebeckers
is to agree among themselves on what they can offer. Why does he
not share the opinion of his NDP colleague on this issue?
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, I believe in the Reform
Party position on consultation. It is a grassroots position.
There is more truth and intelligence coming through from the
people of Canada than we have seen. I also stand to repeat that
the referendum of two years ago was the result of 35 years of
mismanagement by a revolving door of political parties in Ottawa
which brought us to that abyss, which brought us and national
unity to rock bottom. That was management by federal parties.
I totally believe in the Reform Party's support for the process
which involves consultation with the people of Canada across this
great land. That is where we will have real initiative and real
movement on Canadian unity.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the resolution. We
in the Chamber are talking about something that is a priority or
should be a priority to the House of Commons, the unity of our
country.
I listened to members of the Bloc, the separatists. I have
listed to Liberal members. I have listened to members of the
Tory party. One thing became very clear to me. There is a
tremendous difference in the approach and the definition the
Reform Party gives to the word unity and the approach and the
definition the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists give to
the word unity. For the three parties, the Tories, the Liberals
and the separatists, the word unity is all about politics and
political power.
1230
The difference between them and us is that the word unity means
bringing our country together, a united Canada, where the people
of Canada have a say in the future of this country. It is not
about politics. It is not about the Tory politics where under
the regime of Brian Mulroney he brought separatists into his
party simply for political power. It is not about the politics
of the Bloc members who have, through their snake oil salesmen,
convinced so many people in Quebec that there is some sort of a
nirvana out there if they can form their own nation. It is not
about the politics of the Liberal Party seeking to re-establish
its political roots it lost in Quebec.
To us it is about unity and uniting this country, uniting the
grassroots of this country into a belief that this country can be
better strengthened by the unity of all peoples under one flag,
one nation, one people. That is the difference.
I laugh at the suggestions of the Tory party. I laugh at the
suggestions of the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Their arguments
are just beyond belief because we know the agenda behind their
arguments.
Unity should be the number one priority of this Parliament. We
in the Reform Party do endorse the initiatives that have come out
of the Calgary declaration. In particular, we endorse the
philosophy and belief in that Calgary declaration process that
the most important people and the most important factor in this
whole unity debate is the input that comes from the ordinary
Canadian citizens who love this country. That is one of the
things that has been left out of this discussion for over 30
years. The Liberals have left it out and the Tories have left it
out. They prefer to make their master plan for this country in
the backrooms with their political strategists. That is what is
wrong and why the Meech Lake accord failed and the Charlottetown
accord failed. They never went to the people and consulted them.
That is the difference between what the Calgary declaration is
attempting to do and the failed attempts of the Mulroney
Tories and the failed attempts of the Liberals who joined
together under the Charlottetown accord saying this was a great
plan for our country. That is why it has failed. The NDP also
supported that. It failed because they did not go to the people
first and find out what the people thought.
There is an idea that this idea by the Reform Party of bringing
the people of Canada into this debate is nonsense, this idea from
the Tories, the Liberals and the Bloc. I shudder to think that if
we left it up to the old line parties to come up with a master
plan the people once more would not be invited to participate.
We are seeking to develop a plan that has some credibility and
that can only be accomplished when we go to the people. The
political parties that sat in this House in the past have no
credibility when it comes to designing a unity plan. We have
seen this over the last 30 years. They have failed. They prefer
to carry on the family fight between Quebec Liberals and
separatists and the Tories and the separatists for political
power within the province of Quebec, seeing who can outdo each
other, not caring one whit for the unity of this country but more
for the political power they could get out of the appeasement
policies.
The important thing about the Calgary declaration that we want
to establish in this debate is that it was initiated outside of
Ottawa. It was initiated by the premiers and the territorial
leaders. It was a plan that would involve the people of Canada
and bring them into this consensus gathering as to how we are
going to get this country together. It is time for Canadians to
show the politicians how Canada should work, not the politicians
to tell the Canadian people how this unity thing should work.
I call on all Canadians in this debate, as we will today, to
make their opinions known, to attend the unity meetings across
the country. This is something the Tories did not allow under
Brian Mulroney, something they did not allow under the
Charlottetown accord and something the separatists would never
even consider.
1235
They would prefer to have their slick talking leaders carry on
this dream of a wonderful nation that can survive and exist
without the rest of Canada, which they know is a lie.
The Calgary declaration is not a done deal. It is merely a
start of a process that can possibly lead to a solution to our
unity crisis. Therefore there are important interests that we
want to consider.
First of all, we want to consider the fundamental policy, the
fundamental belief that all Canadians are equal. No one should
have special status in this country. Why? This just creates
problems. It has created problems for 30 years and we see it in
the House today, as the Quebec Liberals and the separatists
banter back and forth.
We see it as the Tories join in the conversation. They do not
recognize equality in this country. While all province may be
diverse in their characteristics, they should have equal status
in this country.
We cannot have one province holding a position that is higher
than the other provinces. I do not care which province they are
talking about, whether it is my home province of British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec. No status that is not
equal, it cannot happen.
Equality is the cornerstone of getting to this position of unity
in this country. No one wants to live in a second class
province. No Canadian should have rights that are not enjoyed by
other Canadians and no equality simply increases regional
resentment and national division.
Without equality we cannot have a collective, united feeling
about our country. While the Tories, the Liberals and the
separatists would prefer to talk about what is best on a regional
type basis, the Reform Party wants to talk about equality where
all regions in the country, all provinces and all people live
together on an equal basis under that wonderful Canadian flag
that adorns this House.
Equality also means an end to domineering federalism. We in the
Reform Party have talked about devolution of powers, getting rid
of this big central government which dictates to the provinces in
areas where it should not even be involved.
Yes, we talk about passing powers down to the province of Quebec
that it should handle itself. At the same time, we talk about
passing those same powers down to the other provinces.
I cannot believe that the separatists here, when we are talking
about the transfer of powers into areas the federal government
should not be in, on to their province, would not be in favour of
that. Yet they are not because it does not fit with the big lie
that they have been telling the people of Quebec.
I would ask that all parliamentarians in this House forget about
the politics they have been playing for the last 30 years. Forget
about that and start thinking about what is best for this
country.
The Liberal members opposite laugh when we talk about unity. It
does not fit into their philosophy. They are more interested in
politics, as I stated earlier. I ask the members to support this
resolution and let us begin another step toward the unity of this
country.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think it was really ironic to hear the member talk
about unity so many times and yet the Conservatives are not to be
trusted, the Bloc Quebecois is not to be trusted, the NDP is not
to be trusted, the Liberals are back peddling. No one is to be
trusted except the Reform Party which, by some sort of magic, has
the perfect formula for unity.
He accuses us, in his own words, of not caring one whit about
Canadian unity. I find this very offensive.
1240
I find it extremely offensive that we get told by the Reform
Party that all of us here do not care one whit for Canadian
unity, as if they have the golden message, the true faith, they
are the people who have the answers for everything else and
everybody else is wrong. The hon. member accuses the Liberal
Party of not having carried out consultations during
Charlottetown. I do not think he knows his dossier very well. We
were not the government party so we could not have carried out
consultations. He had better check his files.
I really think the Reform Party in trying to push its motion,
which has a lot of good in it, should really try to involve all
of us if it really cares for unity, rather than just saying “we
have the perfect message and all of you, a curse on your
houses”. I think that is a very sad message coming from the
Reform Party.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been
listening I pointed out that given the dismal failure of the
Liberals and the Tories and the NDP who joined with them over the
last 30 years in trying to bring this country together, and they
have failed, they have lost the trust of Canadians and they have
to start to earn that again.
That first step starts with involving the people of Canada in
this process which they have never done in the past.
I would point out that during the failed Charlottetown accord
the Liberal joined with the Tories and the NDP to try to sell
that Charlottetown accord to the Canadian people, a process
getting to that accord that did not involve the Canadian people.
Sure, there was a dog and pony show going across the country with
hand selected witnesses to give their input, but the average
Canadian was left out and that is why they voted against the
Charlottetown accord.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I find that
the debate between the Reform member for Surrey, if I am not mistaken,
and the member from the La Salle Blues Band across the way exemplifies
the kind of situation we are facing in Canada because we have two
opposite views. On the one hand, the hon. member from the Reform Party,
who does not speak French and may not even have bothered to come to
Quebec to enquire about the real demands Quebec has been making for 30
years, but is nevertheless trying to preach the virtues of unity based
on some kind of Anglo-Canadian supremacy that would basically drown out
Quebec's demands.
On the other hand, there is the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis,
who is presenting the other side of the national unity issue, one that
seems to reflect a clear understanding of Quebec's demands, because we
are well aware that he once was a minister in the Quebec National
Assembly. Yet, the end result is exactly the same. In fact, it would not
make any difference if they were members of the Conservative Party or
the NDP; the bottom line is that they argue, but they all agree on one
thing: to put forward proposal like the Calgary declaration, in which
there is nothing but empty words, that has no political weight
whatsoever and ignores the legitimate and justifiable demands Quebec has
been making for 30 years.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies to
stand in this House and say that I am unable to speak French. I
make no apology for that. I am a Canadian and I love this
country. If anyone should apologize it should be this separatist
member who sits there and refuses to acknowledge that Canadian
flag, refuses to sing the national anthem of this country in this
House and day after day preaches the breaking up of this country.
If anyone should apologize it should be that separatist member
there.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this debate today, but before I begin, I wish
to inform you of something.
[English]
I will be sharing my time with my colleague from
Waterloo—Wellington.
It is really quite tempting to raise a number of the issues that
were addressed by the last speaker from the Reform Party.
1245
I am extremely surprised and disappointed at the comments that
were made. There was a comment that Quebec could not make it
alone. What a wonderful way to start a dialogue. There were
comments such as “a dog and pony show” that ridiculed the
efforts of Canadians and their elected representatives to try to
understand and to find solutions. There were other comments too
numerous to mention.
I am tempted to talk about issues such as what was mentioned in
the last campaign, that no Quebecker should ever again be prime
minister. I am tempted—I am looking for some divine help—to
talk about double talk, the comment about Stornoway and what
happened, but I shall resist temptation.
[Translation]
I want to address the Reform member's proposal, which I find pretty
reasonable, perfectly reasonable in fact. Perhaps this is due to the
fact that he is new and others around him have not had the chance to
socialize with him so far. He came up with a perfectly reasonable
proposal, as far as I am concerned, and he wants to promote consultation
with Canadians across the country. I applaud this approach. He wants to
get Canadians involved. He seems to want to go beyond partisanship and
I support that.
But I think he should speak to his colleagues. One of them has just
stated that there was nothing accomplished over the last 30 years.
Another claims that his party is the only one that can make a
contribution. Still another has made comments that are unworthy of this
House.
Nevertheless, the proposal we are discussing today should be
supported. It should be supported because it refers to consultations
with Canadians across the country. What I would like very much to know
is the position of this political party and also of each political party
on the Calgary declaration. Is it to early to decide on this issue? It
is not too early however to tell others what they should be doing. I
would like to say a few words on this today.
So obviously, our political parties differ, even if we agree more
or less on the proposal that we are discussing today. There are a great
number of differences on immigration, the role of aboriginal peoples in
Canada, bilingualism and many other things. I could talk a lot longer on
this, but the point to remember is that there are great differences, in
all areas, and these will never disappear.
The meeting of Canada's premiers called for public consultations.
This declaration is a good starting point for creating understanding
about our country, about the needs of each region, and, of course, about
the needs of Quebeckers.
The Calgary declaration has the support of a great number of people
throughout the country. It is true that there are people who are
completely against it, and that is understandable. But many responsible
people endorse this declaration.
It is important that the public discuss this proposal and talk
about Canada, and that people gain a greater understanding of each
province and territory, and, of course, of Quebec, which is often not
well understood. Consultations are necessary because they might go
beyond that in terms of creating a greater of understanding of who we
are as a community. I am speaking about all the communities within the
country. I believe they can promote pride.
1250
We may come to realize that we must work more closely together to
be stronger and more receptive to our various needs as citizens of a
specific province, or as members of a specific linguistic, religious or
cultural group.
I will now talk about certain principles. I will begin with
equality. Let me share with you what a Canadian citizen told me. He said
“This is a principle with which we cannot disagree, a principle
recognized in section 15 of the 1982 Constitution Act.
It is clearly stated that all Canadians are equal, regardless of sex,
race, religion, social status or wealth. To state such a principle is in
itself sufficient to demonstrate its validity”.
Some political parties—and, as I said earlier, I will try to
restrain myself—will use something like the principle of equality to
make other claims. The fact is that it has been in Canadian law for a
very long time. The question is whether the principle is always applied
fairly. We could probably find examples where it was not the case, but
let us look at the big picture.
[English]
Let us look at the equality of provinces. There is but one
legal status for the provinces. There are not six. A province
is a province. None can pull rank on the others. We know that.
Though equal they are nonetheless different, with their own
economic, social, cultural and historical characteristics. Though
equal the provinces are nevertheless differentiated from one
another.
That is what some people misunderstand. They misunderstand it
profoundly and they exploit it. They exploit it to their
political advantage. As they do so they tear up the country.
They are guilty of tearing up this country.
This country, which has supposedly done nothing for the last 30,
40, 50 years, is the envy of the world. It is number one on
virtually everyone's list. Millions of people have come to it as
quickly as they could.
[Translation]
Let us talk about other principles. Let us talk about diversity,
tolerance, compassion and equal opportunities. Let us talk about how we
could meet the needs of Aboriginal people, about how we could get them
more involved. Let us not forget multiculturalism, which is an
undeniable reality.
As stated in the declaration, respect for diversity and equality
underlies unity. However, equality does not mean uniformity.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: This is what is not understood by a number
of political parties, including the members who are yelling.
Again, the declaration states that respect for diversity and
equality underlies unity, but equality does not mean uniformity. To
reconcile the principle of equality with the great value of diversity,
Canada can count on a political system which, thanks to its flexibility,
promotes the enrichment of our collective heritage. No other example
better illustrates this reality than the recognition of Quebec's unique
character.
But what is this unique character?
An hon. member: These are just words.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: I heard someone say that these are just
words. It is unfortunate that the member cannot read and understand the
declaration. This is the problem. He did not take time to read the
declaration or to understand it.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand: Explain that.
An hon. member: Mike Harris?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Yes, one person only. Let us take one
person in one province only and let us pretend he knows the truth.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The Premier of Ontario.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Oh, what an effort you are making to
understand.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau: Give us details.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: What an effort you are making to show how
openminded you are, dear colleague.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: The premier in Toronto understood.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: But allow me to continue. “In Canada's
federal system”—and I will end on that point—“where respect for
diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec
society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its
tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well-being of
Canada”.
I could go on, but unfortunately I am being interrupted. How
undemocratic, don't you think?
1255
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Before going to questions and
comments, I wish to inform the House that I have considered the
amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton East, and I declare
that it is in order.
Debate is on the amendment, therefore. The hon. member for
Chicoutimi, for a comment or a question.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
I think this debate clearly shows that as politicians we all have a
professional interest in constitutional matters. We have not always made
a very positive contribution. On the contrary, past failures can rarely
be blamed on the citizens we represent, while, in many instances,
politicians displayed a lack of responsibility for which we are still
paying.
I am very surprised. I hope that the Liberal Party of Canada is in
caucus, because its position is rather hard to understand: to accept and
support a motion moved by a party with a not so glorious past, asking
that we communicate with Quebeckers and consult them on something that
is really incomplete.
That is perfectly normal. We are in a phase where a process was put in
motion and it is perfectly normal to take some precautions before
getting everyone involved, before consulting a people, namely the people
of Quebec, who were sorely disappointed in the Canadian federal system
in the past.
While realizing that it is not good to dwell on the past,
opportunities must always be sought to give people a chance to change
their minds. But when we read what Preston Manning has written—the
man who once said in passing, at the time of the Meech Lake failure:
“I
wish one of the western premiers would deliver the deathblow to the
accord”—it is hard to conceive that he could change his position so
quickly.
Given all the recent negative publicity about politicians in
Quebec, it is asking a lot to support today's motion, which urges the
government to consult Quebeckers.
The Liberal Party endorses a motion which is pure provocation for
all our fellow citizens in Quebec and for all French-Canadians.
I wonder if my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party would support
the withdrawal of the Reform Party motion out of respect for all
Quebeckers and all French-Canadians, until such time as, hopefully, a
proposal can be put forward that is substantial, takes into account
Quebec's historical demands and stands a chance of gaining wide support.
If my hon. colleague could kindly tell us what he thinks of this
idea, because the course we are on today is a collision course, which,
far from helping the debate, is making it worse.
Once again, it would be irresponsible for us as politicians to fast
track something without being properly informed.
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone,
including my colleagues from Quebec, know that I have enormous
respect for Quebec. I always have. I speak French. I wear my
culture with pride. I always have. I did not convert after I
entered political life. It is not a matter of respect. Both I and
my colleagues have respect.
What is happening today? It is true that the party that moved
this motion does not have a glorious past on this issue. But there
are members of this party who are trying. Trying to do what? To
consult. To have Canadians understand what this is about. So,
obviously I will support such a process. Why not? Why not give a
chance to this new member, who could perhaps enlighten some of his
colleagues who are not so enlightened, if we are to judge by the
speeches today.
We are talking about consultations.
1300
I also asked this party about its position on the Calgary
declaration. Ours is very clear. We support the consultation and
we support Quebec's unique character. This is the party that
introduced the motion we voted on in support of Quebec's distinct
nature. Have people forgotten that? This is the party that did
so.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am happy to rise today before this House to give my views on
this very important motion introduced by my colleague from
Edmonton—Strathcona.
There is no more important issue than the unity of Canada. We on
this side of the House confirmed this view in the Speech from the
Throne earlier this fall by identifying national unity as our
highest priority.
As we all know, the premiers of nine provinces as well as two
territorial leaders met on September 14 to discuss a framework
for consulting the population about strengthening the Canadian
federation. What resulted was the Calgary declaration.
The Calgary principles and consultations are a gesture of
goodwill toward all Canadians including Quebeckers, aboriginal
peoples and our linguistic minorities. While the declaration is
not a legal draft nor a proposal for a constitutional amendment,
we believe it is an important step in the right direction. It is
an invitation extended by 11 provincial and territorial
governments to all Canadians and all regions to reflect on and
engage in a new discussion about the values we share as
Canadians.
We also hope that the Calgary principles will lead us to a
consensus on the core values of our country including respect for
the unique character of Quebec.
We on the government side endorse the principles of the
premiers, the territorial leaders and all Canadians to foster
national unity. Further we fully support the consultation
process begun by those premiers and territorial leaders.
The Calgary principles are the work of the premiers and the
territorial leaders. The federal government was not a
participant at the Calgary meeting and is not a major participant
in the current provincial and territorial consultation
procedures. That being said however, I do intend to do what I can
to promote positive public debate on this very important issue,
the Calgary principles, both in my own province and across the
country.
We recognize the Calgary initiative was undertaken in part
because of the interest of the nine premiers and the territorial
leaders in consulting their own populations to create a better
working environment. While they are at various stages,
consultations on the Calgary principles are well under way in
those nine provinces and the territories. This demonstrates a
commitment of those premiers and leaders to the Calgary
principles and by all accounts to date support for these
principles has been widespread.
We on this side of the House urge Canadians to become involved
in this very important consultation process. We urge them to
express their opinion or to suggest possible improvements to the
principles as outlined.
Why is it that the separatist government in Quebec will not
consult Quebeckers on these principles? Is it because the
principles make sense and define Canadian values and ideals? Is
it because it knows that the majority of Quebeckers in fact
support these principles?
Let me be specific on each of the seven principles as outlined
by the premiers and the territorial leaders in the Calgary
declaration.
First, the equality of citizens. All Canadians are equal and
have rights protected by law. This principle is entrenched in
section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This
means that all Canadians irrespective of sex, race, religion,
social or economic status are equal before the law. But equality
is not the same as uniformity.
In a democracy like ours, equality and freedom go hand in hand.
Nothing forces us to have the same beliefs or preferences as
anybody else. We all have the right to be different. In other
words all the children in the family are equal but that does not
mean we are all the same. That is why the Constitution itself in
section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1982 commits all governments
in Canada to the promotion of equal opportunities for the
well-being of all Canadians. It is why various sections of the
Constitution recognize aboriginal and treaty rights of our
aboriginal peoples as well as the rights enjoyed by our
linguistic minorities.
Second, the equality of the provinces. We believe that the
principle of equality that applies to individuals also applies to
the provinces.
It is our view that all provinces have equality of status. None
is set above the others and all have the same fundamental legal
relationship with the people who live there. Having said that,
their equality of status does not mean that they cannot be
different one from the other.
1305
As is the case for all individual Canadians, provincial equality
does not mean provincial uniformity. Each and every province
deserves equal consideration but each province has its own needs
which vary depending on circumstances. This is how our federal
system makes room for differences and avoids locking the
provinces into a rigid structure that would make it impossible
for them to respond to their own special needs.
Third, diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of
opportunity. The history of Canada has been marked by genuine
openness to differences and by a generous spirit of tolerance.
While every country has its weaknesses, circumstances have led us
in Canada to develop greater respect for the diverse backgrounds
of all our citizens. Our spirit of partnership and compassion
has inspired our federal and provincial governments to create
social programs that are the envy of the world and which attest
to our desire to work in partnership to give equal chances to
everyone and our compassion for the neediest among us. That is
very important.
Fourth, our national identity is enriched by the contributions
of our aboriginal peoples, the vitality of the English and French
languages and the multicultural character of Canada. Like the
Calgary declaration and the more recent statements released by
the premiers and leaders, the Speech from the Throne recognizes
the invaluable contribution of the aboriginal peoples to the
building of Canada and the richness of our identity. We and the
aboriginal peoples must work together to respond to the
challenges they face.
Canada's two official languages are another of our country's
riches. Linguistic duality and the viability of both official
language communities in all parts of the country are part and
parcel of our great identity. One of the strengths of Canada,
our official languages are two of the languages in greatest use
worldwide. They contribute substantially to Canada's success
economically, socially, culturally and internationally.
The multicultural character of Canada is a source of national
pride and enrichment as well as being a universal ideal.
Fifth, the unique character of Quebec society. Our recognition
of the linguistic and cultural differences of Quebec addresses
its unique needs and circumstances and is in keeping with the
equality of the provinces and of individual Canadians. That is
why Parliament has adopted a resolution recognizing these
differences.
This recognition of Quebec is a positive message to Quebeckers
who want to be part of the great Canadian family. It
demonstrates to Quebeckers that the rest of Canada does accept
them and respects their right to be different. It is also linked
with the core Canadian values which Calgary underscored, that
Canadians share with their fellow citizens in Quebec: the values
of respect, partnership, fairness, justice and openness.
Sixth, if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on
one province, these powers must be available to all provinces.
While the Calgary declaration does not call for any amendments in
or additions to the division of powers among the governments, in
the event that such an amendment were contemplated, then the
equality of provinces would apply.
We believe that all provinces must have the same tools available
to them to promote their own development. Any tool available to
one province must meet its specific needs and must be available
to all others.
Seventh, greater partnership among the two levels of government
while respecting each other's jurisdiction. This is what the
seventh principle states. We can all agree that the vast
majority of Canadians want their provincial and federal
governments to act in the common interest of all and build a true
Canadian partnership based on solidarity and respect for our
diversity and for areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government has been working very hard to ensure the
efficiency and effectiveness of the federation by emphasizing
consultation and collaboration. The list of all the areas on
which the federal and provincial governments are collaborating is
long. To name a couple, they include labour market training and
federal-provincial talks.
[Translation]
To conclude, I would like to say that the federal government
recognizes that our country is constantly changing. This is the
reality of the Canadian community. It is also a fact that we must
change if we are going to survive as a society.
[English]
As members can see, the consultative process and the seven
principles set out in Calgary are critically important to the
unity of Canada.
1310
I hope that all members on both sides of the House will get the
message out to all Canadians. I would personally like to thank
the official opposition for requesting a debate on the unity of
Canada. There is nothing more important than keeping Canada
together and the motion put before the House today is useful in
achieving this objective.
[Translation]
Canada's past was remarkable, its future will be even more so.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I greatly
appreciated my colleague's speech. It was polite and eloquent but it
meant nothing.
I would suggest, if he has the time, that he read a book by a
journalist at The Globe and Mail, Ray Conlogue, entitled The Impossible
Nation. He would learn a lot from that book on the reality of Canada, a
reality symbolized by the Calgary declaration.
In 1980, there was a referendum, the first referendum ever held in
Quebec, and on that occasion, Quebec told Canada how much its situation
in Canada was frustrating. That referendum led to the Meech Lake
agreement, the Meech Lake formula proposed by a federalist Quebec
government, Robert Bourassa's government. That agreement represented
the minimum Quebec could ask from Canada at the time. Naturally, Canada
refused that minimum and there was a second referendum in which Quebec
voted even more strongly to express its discomfort at being part of
Canada.
That process led to the Calgary declaration.
But there is absolutely nothing in this declaration. It is a
formula offering even less than the Meech Lake formula, where the
uniqueness of Quebec within Canada is mixed in with so many other
elements that we no longer recognize Quebec.
I wonder if the member could tell me how the Calgary declaration
can solve the problem of unity and equality in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I am heartened by the Calgary
declaration and what it stands for and especially by the
consultation process that is part and parcel of that very
important statement not only by the premiers but also by the
territorial leaders.
It is important that we know that Canada is now able to proceed
along these lines and take a look, and a hard look, by all
Canadians in a consultation process to ensure that all Canadians
are heard and that we try to unify the country in a manner
consistent with our history and consistent with our aims and
objectives as we move into the 21st century.
The Calgary declaration is a very important first step. I am
heartened by the leadership role that has been taken not only
here today but also by the premiers especially and the
territorial leaders in this very important area of nationhood.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Hon. members, as we
stated earlier, in questions and comments if there is more than
one person wanting to respond, if I see some activity on the
benches, please keep your questions and comments down to about a
minute.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from the Liberal
Party for his very non-partisan speech. It was very welcome.
I would however like to ask him a question. We have seen over
the last 15 years successive provincial separatist governments in
the province of Quebec wanting to carve the province out of
Canada. Given what he has seen over the last 10 to 15 years in
this country, does he himself believe that the current Bloc
Quebecois, Mr. Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois have any interest
whatsoever in keeping Quebec within Canada?
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I would never presume to
speak for the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois but I would
say on my own behalf that I would hope Canadians, men and women
of goodwill across this great nation, would work very hard to
ensure the viability and the unity of this great country of ours.
I would expect that would be the position taken by people who
genuinely want to unify Canada and maintain the strength of this
great nation.
I would hope as we move into the 21st century that is the
position taken by Canadians.
I see that being the case. I am heartened more and more by the
fact that we are moving in this direction and I am confident that
that is the direction that precisely we will take.
1315
[Translation]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to give my speech in French in order to send a clear message
to the people of Quebec. Unfortunately, my fluency in French is
limited. Therefore, I will speak in English.
[English]
I would like to thank my hon. colleague from
Edmonton—Strathcona for bringing this motion to the House today
at this very important time.
We are, in effect, as part of the Reform Party trying to
articulate, trying to break the glass ceiling on the national
unity issue. This issue has been with us for over 200 years but
in particular over the last 15 years we have seen our nation
fractured into two solitudes or into a number of solitudes.
The ties that should bind us as the greatest nation of the earth
are not being encouraged. In fact, because of repeated inaction
by federal governments and a lack of courage and a will to really
deal with this issue in a substantive way through consulting and
dealing with the people, we have seen our nation be but a shadow
of what it could be and the ties that should bind us as people
break apart.
We have seen a separatist movement in British Columbia. We have
a separatist movement in Quebec. We have seen rumblings in the
maritimes. What a shame for a nation, for all the wealth that we
have as a country, to have this happen.
If we are to continue on this course, we will indeed fracture.
Would it not be a profound tragedy for that to happen? Would it
not be a profound tragedy for us to fracture into little
solitudes in our own little worlds when indeed we could be far
greater as a group than what we could be as individuals?
At no point in time was this more evident than in 1995 during
the referendum. This did not merely appear on our television
sets overnight or in a few months. Rather, it was the
culmination of at least 15 years of profound dissatisfaction from
the people of Quebec and people across this country.
The dissatisfaction of the people in Quebec is expressed perhaps
in different ways but equally passionately by Canadians across
this country. We do not feel that the current constitutional
envelope in which our country currently exists is working.
Indeed, the proof is in the pudding.
The people of Quebec, people in British Columbia, people across
our nation have been clamouring for a new vision for Canada, a
new Canada where the provinces can have the powers to do what
they do best and the feds have the powers to do what they do
best, where Canadians have a direct input into the policy making
that happens in this House.
What happens in this House is not a democracy, as we all know.
The people out there are disarticulated from the policy that is
made in the House of Commons. In part that explains the
dissatisfaction from the people of Quebec. That has to be dealt
with and it has not.
If, for argument's sake, we continue going the way we are going
and separation starts to fall by the wayside as it has been, if
in the next referendum the people vote 60% no against separation,
would that be success?
I would argue that it is not success. I would argue that the
way we are going, the people who would vote 60% no would merely
be voting for the bastard that they dislike the least, not voting
for a vision of Canada for the simple reason that no one, except
I would argue the Reform Party over the last few years, has been
trying to articulate a new message, a new vision, a new division
of powers for the country.
We have seen the failures of Liberal and Conservative
governments before. I am not going to dwell on this but merely
state a historical fact. We need to look at a new way and we
want to work with all members in this House, all parties in this
House to do that.
In fact my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona in his motion has
said very clearly that we want, we demand and we encourage the
government and particularly all Canadians, to be involved in this
important process. We want the people of Quebec to be involved
in this process.
For too long the people of Quebec and indeed the people of Canada
have been left out of this debate. This debate has taken place
in the rarefied atmosphere among political elites and
intellectual elites. While our country hangs in the balance this
debate has gone on in quarters that are less important by far
than the public. The public must be involved.
1320
This process is only valuable if the government is going to
listen to what the people are saying. It is not going to be
useful if their wishes and their desires are going to be ignored
again. Merely going through the motions is not going to do
justice to articulating that vision that holds our nation
together.
I asked the member before a very important question. I asked
him whether or not he felt that the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc
Quebecois, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Parizeau and their ilk are
interested in keeping our country together. If we ask the Bloc
Quebecois members here today, they are not interested in keeping
Quebec in Canada. We asked them that in the last Parliament and
they said “Vrai”. It is true that they do not want to keep
Quebec in Canada.
Why are we negotiating with people who have no interest in
keeping Quebec in Canada? We have repeatedly gone around in a
circle because we repeatedly try to debate and discuss and put
forth solutions to people who have no interest whatsoever in
keeping Quebec in Canada. Therefore, we cannot win. It is
impossible to win in this debate.
Therefore, we have to negotiate with the people of Quebec. We
have to get in the trenches. We have to parler français avec la
francophonie, parler anglais with the English speaking people,
work with the allophones, work with the anglophones, work with
the francophones, get our message across directly to the people
of Quebec.
We will fail miserably if we continue to negotiate with
separatist politicians who are only interested in keeping Quebec
out of Canada. It is a loser's game.
I cannot implore more strongly, I beg as a Canadian, not as a
member of Parliament, for this House to bring the message
repeatedly and consistently to the people of Quebec. It is
exceedingly important, essential in fact in keeping our country
together.
It is also extremely important that in the process of doing this
we dispel the myths that have occurred. In the last referendum
the people of Quebec thought they could send members of
Parliament to this House if they separated. The people of Quebec
felt they could use the Canadian dollar, which they might do.
They felt also that they would have more power over their
economy. They used the European Union as an example.
If Quebec was to engage in a relationship as an independent
country along the lines of the Maastricht treaty, along the lines
of the European Union, their control over monetary and fiscal
policy would be less than what they have today.
The people of Quebec did not understand that. There were many
myths flying around and no one was doing anything about them
because the government said “Don't worry, be happy, everything
is going to be fine”. We came within a razor's edge of
fracturing Canada. That will never happen again as long as the
Reform Party is here to defend Canada.
The message that we send across goes directly through a
separatist leaning francophone media in Quebec, not all but the
vast majority of them. That is part of the reason why the
majority of Quebeckers are more familiar with plan B than plan A.
They can be manipulated in that way to think that the rest of
Canada does not want them in Canada.
As the member for Quebec East said in the last Parliament, the
problem is that English Canadians hate French Canadians, en
français. That message gets across to the people of Quebec and we
do nothing to dispel those horrendous and poisonous myths.
What about the francophone population in the rest of Canada? What
about the Acadian population in New Brunswick? No one speaks
about that, least of all the separatist members in this House.
1325
The member for Quebec East was on a television program with me.
I asked him the following question: If you separate what will
happen to the French-speaking people in New Brunswick, the
Acadians in New Brunswick, and the French-speaking people in
northern Ontario? He answered “Who cares?” Who cares? We
care.
The French-speaking population, the French culture and the
French language are integral and essential to Canada. We are
proud of that fact, we love it and we want francophones to be a
part of Canada forever as equals. The people of Quebec also want
to be equals.
What do the people of Quebec want? It is understandable that
they do not want their language and culture diluted in a sea of
anglophones. That is why the Reform Party said we should give
the powers over culture and language directly to the provinces to
manage. Then the province of Quebec, as every province, would be
the master of its own cultural and linguistic destiny.
The people of Quebec want better jobs and a better future for
their children. They want strong social programs. That is what
the Reform Party stands for and I am sure that members across
this House stand for the same thing. We have effective
solutions. We have put those solutions forward repeatedly.
Before the last referendum we gave the government a plan on how
to give the provinces power over what they do best and how to
give the feds power over what they do best. That is essential to
keeping our country together.
It is important to heal the wounds and to articulate this vision
of a stronger future for all Canadians. It is important to note
what the people of Quebec actually receive from the federal
government. It is amazing to listen to the myths believed by
many in Quebec, that Quebec gives money to the federal government
and gets nothing in return. Twenty-seven per cent of Quebec's
provincial budget comes from the federal government. When I say
that, an extraordinary number of people in Quebec feel they have
just dropped off the edge of the planet. That kind of thing must
occur.
A division of power is important. The Reform Party also put
forward the notion of the triple E senate. During the
Charlottetown agreement discussions there was an agreement on a
2.5 E senate with regional rather than provincial representation.
At least this way the senate would balance out the population
powers in this House by regional interests and regional power.
That way all people in our country could be more empowered,
including the people of Quebec.
I cannot argue strongly enough that today more than ever we need
to have a vision for our nation. We are not a country without an
identity. We are a country with a very strong identity which we
get from our international experiences, through peacekeeping and
the agreements and work in the House of Commons yesterday in the
pursuit of a ban on land mines which will save thousands of
people's lives.
Canadians are respected throughout the world as peacemakers, as
organizers, as individuals and as a nation of people that can be
respected abroad. Canadians are respected because we show
respect abroad. We can lead the world as a nation that has
managed to bring in people from all over the world from disparate
religions and languages into an environment that is relatively
safe. No other country in the world has been able to do that.
We need to deal with the national unity issue now. That is why
my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona and the other members of
the Reform Party are trying to push this issue. We no longer
want to go to the edge of the precipice as we did in 1995 to find
our country almost lost. We must articulate a message that
involves the devolution of sensible powers to the provinces under
the umbrella of equality. We must enable the feds to do what the
feds do best and the provinces to do what the provinces do best.
1330
We must articulate that message directly to the people of Quebec
and not through separatist politicians who have one interest and
one interest only, the separation of the province of Quebec.
We must send our message not through the separatist media in
Quebec but directly to the people, eyeball to eyeball, heart to
heart, soul to soul. We must dispel these myths. We must reach
out our hands in an environment of equality. We must build
bridges of tolerance and understanding so that we together can be
brothers and sisters in this great nation of Canada.
We must respect our differences. Indeed we must use our
differences to build a stronger nation.
For decades we have used our differences to pull ourselves
apart. We have isolated ourselves. We have developed as a
nation of solitudes. These differences are not chasms which keep
us apart; they are ties which bind us together.
If we could look at ourselves in the same way foreigners look
at us, we would be proud. Perhaps we would have a new insight on
what it means to be Canadian.
I hope that all members of the House and, more important,
Canadians will understand this motion, work on its principles and
reach out to all Canadians to build a stronger and united Canada.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we heard a lot of wonderful words from the member opposite about
brothers and sisters and working together.
Normally I would congratulate the Reform Party for this motion,
except that I smell a hidden agenda. I wonder about the
suggestion of going to the people of Quebec. If Reform members
are going to communicate with the people of Quebec, I would like
the member to tell me if they intend to use the same advertising
agency they used during the federal election campaign, which sent
a very poisonous message that was not helpful to Canadian unity.
I would agree with the member that the separatists have no
interest whatsoever in keeping this country unified. However, we
must develop a reasonable option where if we are saying that the
separatists do not want to keep Canada together, we are prepared
to talk to Quebec.
I would ask if the member could tell us exactly how Reform
members would calmly talk to Quebeckers to ensure them that they
are indeed a unique people.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, we would speak to the
people of Quebec as we have spoken to the people of Quebec in the
House today. The message that we have given today will go to
people all across the country, including the people of Quebec.
The Reform Party's agenda is not hidden. The Reform Party's
agenda is very transparent: keep our country together, build a
stronger country, work together toward unity. We would do it by
the division of powers. Let the provinces do what the provinces
do best, and let the feds do what the feds do best. We would
ensure that the people of Quebec would have the power to control
their culture and language, as would all the provinces. We would
do it under the umbrella of equality for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to tell my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca that as a whole,
I appreciate what he had to say. I want to come back to his suggestion.
He seems to have something to say to the people of Quebec; I would
suggest, if he is really interested in solving the problem, that he
listen to Quebeckers.
The problem in Canada is that people do not listen to Quebec. To
begin with, he should wonder why is Canada falling apart. It is not
Quebeckers' fault. It is not because they did not say what was on their
mind and what was troubling them, it is because nobody wants to listen.
People have been disregarding the message not of something that is
uniquely Canadian, but from a third or a quarter of the Canadian
population, one of the founding nations of Canada, which today has been
reduced to something with a unique character.
1335
I would suggest that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, if
in his heart he truly wants to find a solution to save Canada, listen to
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Quebec Est. We have had a longstanding debate on this issue
for many years and it is one I enjoy tremendously.
If the member wants to talk about listening to the people of
Quebec, he would have listened to what was said in the last two
Quebec referendums. He would have gone home and tried to build a
stronger Canada. The people of Quebec have clearly stated that
they want to stay in Canada.
An hon. member: For a few years.
Mr. Keith Martin: That is the problem. The members of
the Bloc do not listen to the people of Quebec. However, I will
put that aside because I want to build on something more
positive.
The member is partly correct. All people of Quebec have been
dissatisfied with the provincial and federal relationship for
many years. He will be interested to know that the
dissatisfaction is felt by Canadians across the country, by
British Columbians, Albertans, maritimers and Ontarians.
The member raised the subject of unique and distinct. The
people of Quebec do not give a care about unique and distinct.
They want good jobs, strong social programs and a better future.
I would ask the hon. member, if the House were to give the
people of Quebec the distinct society clause, would he still want
to stay in Canada. I do not think so.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I just
have a brief comment. I hope our Liberal friends across the way have
understood, following what Reform members said this morning, that they
had better vote against the motion from the Reform Party if they want to
keep some credibility in the constitutional debate.
My question is for the Reform member. He gave a poignant, perhaps
interesting speech. About francophones, he said “Who cares?” I would
like to answer that question. Reform certainly does not care, judging by
its anti-francophone campaign during the last federal election. But I
would like to ask him how he reconciles the fact he wants to abolish the
Official Languages Act with the defence of francophones in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, before the last
referendum the prime minister said “don't worry, be happy,
everything is going to be fine”.
The Reform Party said that everything was not fine. Months
before the referendum we put together a plan A and a plan B. It
is interesting that now the government is articulating a message
which is very similar to our plans A and B, one it denigrated
before the last referendum. Who cares? The Reform Party cares.
I do not think there is a member in the House outside of the
Bloc Quebecois who does not care about keeping Canada together.
All members of the House and the vast majority of Canadians,
including the people of Quebec, want to stay in Canada. We just
need a vision. We need to change the federal-provincial
responsibilities. The people of Quebec need to understand that
they are welcome and loved within the family of Canada. They are
an integral part of our history and our future. We need to get
that message across. However, it will do no good for this debate
to occur just within the House and with the people who are
watching today. The message has to get into the living rooms and
kitchens of people across the country, in particular to the
people of Quebec.
It is important to have the francophones of northern Ontario,
Manitoba, New Brunswick and other parts of the maritimes as
allies to keep our country together. Francophones in Quebec must
understand that their language is stronger within a united Canada
than it would be in a divided one.
1340
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, with some
of the Reform messages I have been hearing over the last half
hours or so I feel like I am sucking on a very sour candy or a
lemon. I am left with a very bitter taste in my mouth.
I hear the words unity and grassroots being spit out like
invectives. They are not nice sounding words. I wonder why I am
not feeling the warm fuzzy stuff that I am supposed to be feeling
from you people. In fact, it does not feel good to me. It feels
very suspect. I question your desires to actually keep this
country together.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will address her
remarks to the Chair. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member feels
that talking about consulting the people through grassroots and
talking about national unity is invective and somehow poisonous,
I suggest she look at a dictionary.
We have repeatedly tried to put forth plans to keep our country
together. In fact, I introduced last year a letter writing
campaign between students in Quebec and students in British of
Columbia. What I hope to do is get the young people of British
Columbia and Quebec writing to each other to try to dispel the
myths between them, for them to understand each other. If we can
get to the youth, when they are confronted by myths put out by
separatist politicians, they will say “I have a friend in
British Columbia. My friend is a good person who talks sense,
who likes me, who has very similar concerns”.
That is how we are going to build ties. We are going to build
them by building bridges of understanding, tolerance and
communication. I have not heard anything from the New Democratic
Party, any message whatsoever on how to keep the country
together. I strongly urge the member to look at our plans, plans
based on keeping the country together on the basis of equality
for all.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier today, I congratulate the member for
Edmonton—Strathcona for his initiative in presenting to the
House of Commons an opportunity to speak on national unity.
This is the type of debate which should throw the clock away.
As long as members want to speak on it we should be allowed to
keep going.
The objective of the motion I totally support. It may not seem
as a surprise to him but I come from a totally different
direction on how we resolve the issue of national unity.
I came to this city in 1979-80. I had the privilege and the
pleasure of working for the prime minister of Canada at that
time, the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. One of the
central themes of the prime minister was the Constitution. One
of the areas within the Constitution the prime minister was
passionately committed to was the whole are of national programs.
He believed, and nearly all of us supported him in this House,
even many members in the opposition, that national programs
create national will. From national will you have a spirit that
can promote and bind the country together.
I can remember from 1980-1984 the taxpayers of Canada spent
millions of dollars promoting the Government of Canada's presence
in every region of the country. In early 1980 there was this
great feeling of western alienation, that the Government of
Canada did not do anything for the west. We were all surprised
because there was billions of dollars, whether in direct grants
or programs or services, which went to western Canada, as to
other regions. We discovered when we looked closer that the
Government of Canada's presence was hidden. It really was not
well known. We had to educate and show people what the Government
of Canada did in providing service, presence.
1345
Agriculture Canada had 55 research offices across western
Canada. Very few people even knew they were there providing a
service to farmers and the agricultural community of western
Canada.
We tried vigorously to have a Government of Canada presence in
anything and everything we were doing, not just in western Canada
but right across the country.
Since the election of Prime Minister Mulroney I have noticed
something that has not stopped. There has been an almost
complete dismantling of the Government of Canada presence in the
country. In name of being fiscally responsible or fiscal
discipline, we have offloaded, sold off airports, given away
properties, have walked away from responsibilities and have given
them to the municipalities or the provinces. We have done all
this in the name of being fiscally efficient or in the name of it
being important in terms of promoting partnership.
With respect and admiration for my friend from
Edmonton—Strathcona, I think the pendulum has swung too far. The
Government of Canada presence has dwindled to a point where many
people are wondering whether we even have the capacity to deliver
on some of the programs and services we should be delivering on
if we are to properly manage the country.
By the way, I will be sharing my time with the parliamentary
secretary for international affairs.
I said earlier and I will say again that I support the member's
objective of talking about national unity. However I do not
think we can be in a community or a marketplace if our product is
not on the shelf. In the last 10 to 15 years we have removed the
the Government of Canada presence from all shelves not just in
Quebec but in other regions of the country. I make no apology; I
am a passionate believer in the Government of Canada having a
major presence in every community and region of the country.
I abhor the fact that the postal service of Canada has
practically written off the Government of Canada presence. For
many years in many villages and communities across Canada that
was the only shelf presence of the Government of Canada. It was
the community's only link to this place. When we move from post
office to airports to ports, the litany goes on and on and on.
Let us just take a business example. If someone is selling
Pepsi-Cola and I am selling Coca-Cola and the only thing in the
market is Coca-Cola, what will happen? Will we go to the store
and ask for Pepsi even though we never see it?
In my judgment what we have in Quebec is a total lack of
Government of Canada presence. We have given the separatists a
free ride. Those of us who were in the House in the last
parliament, those of us who were here when Lucien Bouchard was
here, notice the distinct difference. When Lucien Bouchard was
here as the leader of the official opposition they had lots of
presence. They owned the market. They controlled the market.
Thank God the Reform Party has moved into official opposition,
because not only have we lost Lucien Bouchard, who was a
charismatic leader, but we now have the Bloc Quebecois slipping
off the radar screen.
The Bloc is starting to slip. Its presence in the marketplace is
starting to slip. Its own people are asking what it is here for.
1350
I say to my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona that if we are to
have success in pulling the country together it is time for the
Reform Party to shift gears a little. It should change its
direction of dismantling, offloading and decentralizing national
government.
The objectives of members are founded on good will, but perhaps
the Reform caucus will say it should be looking at amplifying the
Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec rather
than what it says every day. They ask “What are going to sell
off? What are we going to offload? What are we going to give to
the provinces?”
We have 10 different chunks across Canada and the Government of
Canada is rendered meaningless. It is off the shelf.
In the last few years we have all been obsessed with putting the
fiscal framework of the House back together. Obviously all
members have worked hard to achieve that objective.
If we are to hold the country together, Government of Canada
presence through proper services for young people, proper
services for small business, proper activism and knowing that
creativity and activism come from the House, we will have to
shift gears and get back into an activism in all markets.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend my colleague from Broadview—Greenwood on his
speech. I enjoyed it. We share many similar ideas and views.
One thing specifically pertains to the motion put forward today
by the Reform Party and I would like to ask the member what he
thinks specifically about it.
He talked about a greater government presence and a
strengthening of government presence in Canada. We have an
opportunity, especially from his point of view, to do that now in
Quebec with the Calgary declaration. He talked about a product.
Here is a chance for the Government of Canada to take a product
to the people of Quebec, who will hopefully have a say like the
rest of Canadians, and to bring the country together. Surely that
is goal of all my colleagues and most members of the House.
What does the member have in mind on behalf of the government,
as we suggested in the motion, in terms of taking the Calgary
declaration to the people of Quebec? When should we do that or
how should we do that?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I support many items in
the Calgary accord, “Framework for Discussion on Canadian
Unity”. All Canadians are equal and have rights protected by
the law. A lot of it is easy to handle.
Point six reads:
If any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one
province, these powers must be available to all provinces.
Obviously as a passionate centralist, as a passionate
interventionist, I find the pendulum has gone too far the other
way. I would have some real difficulty on that point.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to comment on the question of the hon. member from the Reform Party
to the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. He was asking about
possible consultations in Quebec.
1355
It seems clear to me that there have been consultations in Quebec
about several things within Canada. I would like to ask my friend,
whose speech I really enjoyed, whether he thinks it is necessary to have
a consultation in Quebec, when the population has already expressed, on
several occasions, it dissatisfaction about staying in Canada? Does he
really think that it would add something new?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest,
I would support the Government of Canada being very active in the
province of Quebec, but I would go at it differently from the
current course we are on.
I would go over the heads of the Bloc Quebecois, over the heads
of the premier and the legislature of the province of Quebec, and
right to the people. The bottom line is that their vision of
Quebec is a purely separatist system. If the country is to have
a chance, we really should not waste a lot more time with the
Bloc Quebecois or Lucien Bouchard. We should go right to the
people. The proof is in the pudding. When Pierre Trudeau went
right to the people he got 74 of 75 seats. That is the way the
prime minister should do it.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad the government member actually recognized what
we have been saying all along. There is no interest whatsoever
in negotiating with individuals who have no interest in
negotiating in the first place.
To show the mythology that has taken place, before Mr. Bouchard
asked one of his members to do an economic analysis of the
consequences of separation, the separatist individual put forth a
document that demonstrated very conclusively that separation
would cost Quebeckers dearly. That document was put underneath
the carpet and forgotten.
Will the hon. member request in caucus that the prime minister
and his fellow members go directly to the people of Quebec
repeatedly and continuously over the next few years to spread a
message of unity in the country?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is
no. I think we forget the Prime Minister of Canada has been
elected six times in the province of Quebec. No one knows how to
handle the province of Quebec better than the prime minister.
We have to encourage the prime minister and the cabinet to be
much more supportive in grassroots activism in the province of
Quebec.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
YOUTH CRIMES
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, tragically we just heard of the brutal fourth murder in
my riding, the one of 14 year old Reena Virk. It is just the tip
of the iceberg in youth crimes.
Youth crime has doubled since 1986. The majority of victims are
youths and government efforts to try to deal with the problem
have been all but impotent. Our usual response of detection,
deterrence and detention is simply not working.
Head start programs in Moncton, Montreal, Michigan and Hawaii
have demonstrated that dealing with the cognitive and social
development of children in the first eight years of life have
shown dramatic decreases in juvenile crime, teen pregnancies and
drop-out rates. All show savings of $5 for every dollar
invested.
The National Crime Prevention Council and the House of Commons
justice committee have recommended that a program be started. I
ask and demand that the Minister of Justice, when she meets with
her provincial counterparts next month, develop a national head
start program—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Cambridge.
* * *
1400
COUNCILLOR BILL STRUCK
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
Cambridge lost a very caring and committed councillor who served
the community for almost 30 years.
Known as a champion of the average person, Councillor Bill
Struck was first elected in 1964.
An air gunner in the Royal Canadian Air Force, Mr. Struck's
Lancaster bomber was shot down over occupied Europe in 1944. He
spent several days evading the Germans and reached allied lines
with the help of the French underground.
Mr. Struck was instrumental in naming new streets after the
city's war veterans and regularly spoke to students about the
experiences of veterans.
Councillor Bill Struck established the standard for public
service in Cambridge. He will be missed by the entire community.
I would personally like to extend my condolences to his friends
and loved ones.
* * *
[Translation]
DRUMMONDVILLE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
inform this House that the area of Drummondville, that I represent since
1993, is a huge economic success story.
Its industrial park contains 430 companies, including 26 new ones
launched in 1996. For the last two years, investments have topped $100
million and they created almost 1,400 jobs per year. This is where the
highest proportion of exporting companies in Quebec is.
In 1996, the American magazine Site Selection ranked the two
Drummondville industrial parks in the sixth place in the world for job
growth.
The motivation of local business people has created a climate
favourable to entrepreneurship. The local Société de développement
économique, under the direction of Mayor Francine Ruest-Jutras, has been
organizing for years Teams Drummondville to travel around the world.
Drummondville is viewed, and rightly so, as one of the engines of
economic renewal in Quebec. Congratulations, Drummondville.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C SOCIETY OF CANADA
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to recognize the important and outstanding work of the
Hepatitis C Society of Canada. I had the honour of being asked to
sit as a founding member of the society's board in 1994 and this
past Sunday was pleased to participate in its Horizon of Hope
Annual Conference in Toronto.
The Hepatitis C Society of Canada is a national organization
with a network of more than 20 chapters and telephone support
lines across the country. The society provides advocacy and acts
as a strong support network for survivors and their families and
provides valuable information sharing on such things as treatment
and disability issues.
Approximately 300,000 Canadians have tested positive with
hepatitis C. Many more have the virus and do not know it. Of
those infected, some have not shown symptoms but in others
chronic hepatitis C presents itself as serious liver disease.
I want to thank the Hepatitis C Society for the important work
it does and for its commitment to increasing the quality of life
for the many Canadians who live with hepatitis C.
* * *
RAY SMITH
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding volunteer
efforts of Mr. Ray Smith. Mr. Smith lives in Lindsay, Ontario
which is located in my riding of Victoria—Haliburton.
Ray was part of the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business
organization. This organization is part of Canada's effort to
stimulate development in disadvantaged economies. Last year this
association provided almost 23,000 days of service valued at $8
million.
Ray spent four weeks in Roseau, Dominica helping the owners of a
property containing natural hot and cold sulphur springs develop
a business plan for a spa resort. Ray recognized the potential
for both health and tourism purposes and helped the owners
achieve it.
Thanks to Ray Smith, disadvantaged countries can gain the tools
needed to be successful. Great job, Ray.
* * *
TELEMARKETING
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
total losses from telemarketing scams are estimated to be around
$4 billion.
Telemarketing scams often target vulnerable people, especially
the elderly. From January to September of this year, 56% of
victims were over 60 years old and 85% of these victims lost more
than $5,000.
This is a very serious crime that threatens the financial
security of our parents, grandparents and all Canadians. Tough
new measures have just been introduced to attack these
telemarketing scams. Bill C-20 will crack down on criminals by
amending the misleading advertising provisions of Canada's
Competition Act.
I call on my colleagues in this House to take action against
telemarketing crime. I ask them to inform their constituents
about programs like PhoneBusters and SeniorBusters, arm them with
information to guard against these scams, and support the new
crime fighting legislation before the House.
* * *
CANADA POST STRIKE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
evidence of the devastating effects of the Canada Post strike can
be found by talking to two men in my riding, Randy and Rod
Lorenz. They own a mail order business and sell Christian books
and material across the country. The month leading up to
Christmas is their busiest time of the year.
This mail disruption has caused their business to drop by 80%.
1405
Even if back to work legislation is implemented immediately, it
may be too late for the Lorenzes. If they lose their business,
Rod also loses his homestead which he mortgaged to finance the
business.
This disastrous situation was avoidable. Reform has long
proposed a solution which would have averted this and all future
strikes and lockouts at Canada Post while still honouring the
collective bargaining process.
This government has no long term solutions. Even if their
business survives the current labour dispute, the Lorenzes can
look forward to more labour disruptions in the future.
I challenge the labour minister or any member of the government
to look the Lorenzes in the eye and tell them that they care.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC ECONOMY
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the finance minister said once again that if Quebec is lagging behind
economically, it is because of the political uncertainty.
We would really like the minister to explain to us, if this is the
case, why the maritimes are lagging even further behind than Quebec. Yet
they do not spend their time wanting to separate from the so-called best
country in the world. Could there be other explanations? Could it be
that the federal petrochemistry, fisheries or transportation policies
have hurt industrial development in Quebec and in the maritimes?
Of course not. What separatist heresy to dare think that the
federal government could harm the economy of the provinces. We know full
well it is the separatists' fault.
I ask the members opposite to get their heads out of the sand for
two seconds, if they can, and listen up: sovereignty is not the problem,
it is the solution for Quebec.
* * *
[English]
GLOBAL VISION
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the hon. member from Nipissing who is the parliamentary chairman
for Global Vision, I am pleased to announce the completion of the
Global Vision program for 1997 along with the report from junior
team Canada.
Global Vision is a non-profit organization dedicated to
providing young Canadians with an understanding of international
trade and commerce. Following a series of regional seminars held
throughout the country, 25 young leaders of junior team Canada
representing 100 Canadian companies completed a successful trade
mission to southeast Asia.
I would like to thank the following sponsors for helping to make
this program a success: AGRA, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
CIDA, Corel, Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Drake
Goodwin Corp., Industry Canada, Laidlaw, Lombard, Microtronix,
Mitel, Nova, Remington Energy, Singapore Airlines, Toshiba
Canada, Western Star Trucks—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bourassa.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC GOVERNMENT
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are told that
separatists are playing with the idea of a referendum to ask Quebeckers
if they consider themselves a people.
It really takes a separatist not to know that there are two
founding peoples in Canada, a reality that is recognized everywhere in
the country. For separatists to suggest another referendum on a question
to which all Quebeckers already have the answer shows how out of touch
they are with reality.
The last referendum cost Quebeckers more than $80 million,
according to Le Soleil.
I say to Mr. Bouchard and his henchman of a representative in
Ottawa, if you hold a referendum, ask the people if they think that
these millions could be put to better use and that asking them silly
questions is a good way to manage their money.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today I join a growing number of Albertans who want their next
senator elected. Many residents in my riding have called saying
they want the Prime Minister to allow the province of Alberta to
elect its next senator. But the Prime Minister is not listening.
The poor attendance record of some of the senators, the partisan
appointments of this government and the constitutional inability
to “dis-appoint” delinquent senators all make the Senate
increasingly irrelevant. It is time to change this institution
now. The first step toward this move would be by ensuring there
is an election in Alberta. This move is nothing new. Precedent
has already been set with the election of Senator Stan Waters. So
why the hesitation?
I stand before the House today as a representative of thousands
of Albertans who want change. Let Albertans elect a senator who
will represent them.
* * *
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some 51% of all Canadian women have experienced at least
one incident of physical or sexual assault by age 16.
November 25, the international day to end violence against women,
has been set aside as a reminder that senseless acts of violence
are committed every day against women in every corner of the
world. And Canada is no exception.
1410
This day helps to raise public awareness of the damaging
consequences of violence against women and girls. Too many women
have had their lives and their spirits broken by such violence
and attempts to control them. In Canada the annual cost of sexual
assault, psychological and physical abuse is estimated at between
$1.5 billion and $4.2 billion.
We all have a collective responsibility to ensure that women and
girls are not subjected to violence because of their gender.
This is a call to action. It is a rallying cry to Canadians to
work together to bring an end to these crimes against women.
* * *
APEC
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
thanks to the People's Summit the issue of human rights and
labour standards has not been able to be swept under the red
carpet at APEC.
Thanks to the currency crisis in Asia, instead of being able to
uncritically celebrate the ecstasies of the market, many at APEC
lament the agonies of a global economy in which entire regions
and national economies can be ruined by money speculators.
Instead of down playing these concerns, the Prime Minister should
join the call for a global regime to regulate and tax currency
speculations. How many more bail outs will there have to be
before we go after the major cause of why these various economies
sink in the first place?
The fact is that the Asian miracle was largely built on
exploitation of cheap labour. As workers in these countries
demand a fair share, international investors and multinational
corporations lose their fascination and look elsewhere for people
to exploit. Such is the nature of unregulated global capitalism.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTREAL ECONOMY
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had good news today. Recent data compiled by the development
service of the City of Montreal show that job creation for professionals
is increasing since the beginning of the year.
The level of employment in services to businesses was 18% higher in
the first three quarters of 1996. There is another encouraging sign: the
vacancy rate for downtown offices has decreased in a promising fashion.
It was 17.7% in the beginning of fall 1997, down from 19.7% at the
beginning of the year.
Therefore, I am asking all stakeholders of Montreal's business
sector to ensure that consultation and cooperation between all levels of
government are maintained to achieve sustainable economic growth.
The Canadian government will continue to be an important ally for
all economic partners in all regions of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
ATLANTIC GROUNDFISH STRATEGY
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of Human Resources Development defended in
the House a $350,000 training program to help his employees deal
with “life threatening, explosive, dangerous situations after
the end of the TAGS review”.
Does the minister really believe that he is dealing with
terrorists or criminals? These fishers and plant workers are
honest, law-abiding citizens. These are people who due to no
fault of their own have been cut off prematurely from their
primary source of income.
Why are there no programs to train fisheries and oceans
employees on the west coast to deal with the Pacific salmon
demonstrators? The Government of Canada has not proposed similar
measures for Canada Post management.
Does the minister believe that fishers and plant workers are
more prone to violence? This call for extra security is an insult
to all people of Atlantic Canada. As a Newfoundlander I am
offended by the proposal. As a federal member of Parliament I am
ashamed of the minister's plan.
I call upon all my colleagues in the House to urge the minister
to withdraw his proposal and apologize to all Atlantic Canadians.
* * *
REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier this month I attended Remembrance Day parades, services
and dinners with the legions of Peterborough riding and with
members of the Hastings-Prince Edward Regiment.
This year I met only one World War I veteran who was brought by
his family to the Norwood Cenotaph ceremony. There was another at
the Peterborough Cenotaph.
During World War I there were only eight million people in
Canada. However an incredible 620,000 men and women served in the
Canadian forces in that war. Of these, 67,000 died and 173,000
were wounded. Thus more than a third of our troops were wounded
or killed. Nearly one in every ten Canadians who fought in that
war did not return. Such statistics are almost unimaginable
today.
Those who served and died in World War I ranged from First
Nations people to immigrants who had only been in Canada for a
few weeks.
There is a saying that the character of a person or a society
has to be forged by fire. World War I was Canada's fire. Let
us—
The Speaker: The hon. member for York South—Weston.
* * *
1415
AIRBUS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, every Canadian, including Brian Mulroney, has the right
to due process, which is to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. My constituents are asking why the investigation is
ongoing when the Government of Canada approved a settlement a few
months ago. For an investigation to be ongoing, it would suggest
there is substance to the allegations. Canadians across the
country are asking why settle if there is some substance to the
allegations?
It seems that investigation is frivolous, vexatious and grounded
in politics more than in due process of law. It seems the only
fair and just thing to do is to terminate the investigation
immediately.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the postal strike has gone on for a full week now. Even if the
government were to legislate the workers back today, it would
still take five more days until this legislation could be
enacted.
The Canadian public will not put up with this much longer. The
minister of public works has gone on record publicly as saying
that he would legislate these post office workers back to their
jobs. My question for him now is when will he do it. How much
longer will this nonsense go on?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague wants to talk
about legislation on a full time basis. I appointed a mediator
yesterday named Mr. Edmondson who is one of the best mediators in
the country. Let him demand the opportunity to bring the parties
together and come up with a collective agreement.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this government has just gone through its third conciliator and
mediator. There have been three of them in the past seven months
which is hardly a great success that they should be raving about.
The radical union hierarchy is taking charge of this whole
thing. Just yesterday the postal union boss said “sisters,
brothers, comrades, postal workers will resist”. He threatened
to shut down airports and close highways and bridges. This is
nothing to brag about. This is a tragedy to this country. I
want to know who is in charge here. I ask this minister again.
When in the world is he going to get these people back to work
and show that he is in charge—
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed at my hon. colleague's silly rhetoric.
As I indicated previously, we have appointed a mediator who is
quite capable. Let us give the man an opportunity. There is a
process to go through. We are following the process. Let us
support the process and give the mediator an opportunity to come
up with a collective agreement and not continually talk about
something that hurts the negotiations.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am disappointed that this government thinks process is going to
solve the problem. We have had four strikes in the last 10
years. It has not worked and we need to keep moving. We will
never know how many businesses go bankrupt because of this
strike. We will never know how many people will be thrown out of
work and we will never know how many dreams have been ruined by
people. All we will know for sure is that this government had a
chance to act and do something and it let the Canadian public
down.
My question is for whichever of these two ministers is going to
take responsibility for this mess. Why are they taking direction
and allowing Darrel Tingley to say these kinds of things? Why do
they not move ahead, get cracking and get the postal workers
back?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I tell my hon. colleague that I will take care of the
collective bargaining process and I will make sure the Canada
Labour Code is adhered to. There is a process to go through. Let
us follow the process and let us give Mr. Edmondson a chance to
come up with an agreement.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister keeps saying let collective bargaining
work. It is not working. We have Canada Post negotiators
beating up a CUPW negotiator. We have CUPW president Darrel
Tingley writing threatening letters to Canadian business. We
have the Minister of Labour on national television claiming the
minister responsible for Canada Post mis-spoke and should be
chastised.
Not only is collective bargaining not working, Canadians are not
working. When is the minister going to invoke legislation and
allow these negotiations to still continue under mediation?
1420
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague must have been listening to a
different television than I was.
What we have to do is let the process work, as my colleague has
indicated. Over 94.5% of the businesses under the federal
jurisdiction have settled disputes. That means that we need to
let the system work.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a dispute? They are out, for God's sake.
The other day I pointed out to the Minister of Labour that
Canadian businesses are losing hundreds of millions of dollars a
day and he does not care. I pointed out that tens of thousands
of Canadians are laid off and he does not care. We have a Canada
Post negotiator beating up a CUPW negotiator and he still does
not care. Thirty million Canadians have lost their mail service
and he does not care.
What the hell does the minister care about?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the heritage minister again refused to answer questions about
Option Canada's activities. All we know is that $4.8 million was taken
from the federal treasury and spent to promote Canadian unity. There is
no report, no minutes, no activity report. There is only the minister's
refusal to answer.
I ask the minister: Why is she stubbornly refusing to talk about
Option Canada's activities? Can she tell us how much of that $4.8
million was spent during the 1995 referendum campaign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday, last week, the
week before and last March.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister's answers sound like the ones she gave about the GST before she
had to resign.
We wonder if this $4.8 million was used as a slush fund for the
Council for Canadian Unity. I ask the minister to tell us unequivocally
that the $4.8 million subsidy was not used in any way to fund the
Montreal rally, the love-in that took place on October 27, 1995. Was
federal money used to pay for this event?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the hon. member, who seems to care so much about how
taxpayers' money is spent, that sovereignists spent a large amount of
public money provided by Quebeckers. They spent the equivalent of the
salaries of 2,998 Quebec nurses.
They spent an amount equivalent to the salaries of 2,600 Quebec
teachers on the referendum. They—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the heritage minister.
On the eve of the referendum campaign, the heritage minister handed
out a $4.8 million grant to Option Canada.
Does the minister realize that her refusal to answer our questions
is leading us to believe that she knowingly and directly violated the
referendum legislation then in force in Quebec and that she now refuses
to be accountable?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, unfortunately, the facts put forward by the hon. member are
wrong.
I was not even the minister in charge at the time.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thought there was such a thing as ministerial continuity, but it looks
as if she is telling us something new today. There was a referendum law
in force in Quebec. The federal government was aware of it and was bound
by it.
Are we to understand that through her complicity the heritage
minister is putting herself above the law?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfair for Bloc members to accuse me of putting myself
above the law. First of all, I was not even a minister at the time the
grant was handed out.
1425
Second, the PQ, the separatists spent $100 million of Canadian
taxpayers' money on their option, and they have the gall to stand in the
House and accuse me of breaking the law.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
questions is for the Minister of Human Resources.
Fishermen and fish plant workers in Atlantic Canada are furious
at the government's misplaced priorities. Instead of ensuring
families can put food on their tables by extending or replacing
TAGS, the federal government is more concerned about crisis
management and security measures than securing jobs. Even
Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin has demanded a public apology
from the minister for his “disgusting and offensive” affront.
Will the minister apologize today?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of
the NDP for giving me the opportunity to correct the record on
this very important file.
I understand the fishery workers' frustrations. I want to tell
them that the statement that was proposed for the contract was
inappropriately worded and it did not go through the proper
approval process.
The statement has been withdrawn. It will be rewritten and
submitted to accurately reflect the training requirements of our
people across Canada.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I think
we can take that as an apology, maybe.
I do not know whether what we are seeing here is a major spat
between two Liberal leadership contenders, the minister and the
Newfoundland premier. What fishery families who are in the
crossfire are concerned about is how they are going to feed their
families.
In the words of Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin “When will
this government begin planning an appropriate response to a very
real problem that afflicts thousands of families?”
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government is discussing
a post-TAGs review right now. I have appointed one of our very
serious and senior official in the department to meet with the
provinces and the people to make sure we have the best solutions.
In the meantime we trust Canadians. We trust Canadians from
coast to coast. We trust Canadians in Atlantic Canada. We know
they will behave correctly and properly because they are
Canadians. That is the way we do things.
We are training our people to do the right training, to do the
process management, management of crowds, to do the interaction—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada.
The Manitoba government has brought to the minister's attention
on a number of occasions the effects of the reduction of the
federal Young Offenders Act cost sharing program to the
provinces.
Current federal contributions will only amount to 33.8% of the
total cost in Manitoba, 22% in British Columbia and 30% in
Newfoundland.
My question is this. Is the federal government going to put its
money where its mouth is and start getting tough on young
offenders or is it going to continue to download those costs to
the provinces?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very aware of the issues
the hon. member has alluded to. That is why we will be
discussing that issue among others as it relates to young
offenders on December 4 and 5 in Montreal.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am perfectly aware of the meeting on December 4 with the
provincial ministers and the self-congratulatory fashion in which
the minister deals with it.
I would to like to ask, however, if those provinces decide not
to administer that program on the Young Offenders Act, what
contingency plans does the minister have to carry on with those
particular programs without the provinces?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
very much aware, the provinces and the federal government have
worked constructively for many years in relation to the creation
of a youth justice system. Despite what some may say, it is the
envy of the world.
I have no reason to expect that that level of co-operation will
not continue.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, ever since this postal strike began all we have been
hearing from the minister is wait and see, let the process work.
Let us look at what that policy has done. It has got us seven
months of failed bargaining. We have a nation-crippling postal
strike on our hands. We have a Canada Post which refuses to
budge on its offer. We now have a loose cannon postal president
threatening civil disobedience.
1430
This wait and see attitude is not working. When is he going to
take his head out of the dead letter chute and see the problems
this is causing?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure what part of this process my hon.
colleague does not understand.
Quite simply, mediation is part of the collective bargaining
process and it is my responsibility to see that the process runs
properly. That is exactly what I am doing.
What my hon. colleague is suggesting does nothing but hurt the
process.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, Canadian businesses are looking at this time of the
month as their biggest accounts receivable time.
They have payrolls to meet and they cannot meet them. It is
easy to see that minister never had to meet a payroll in his
life. This strike is costing millions of dollars a day to
Canadian businesses.
When is he going to do something? When is he going to recognize
that this nation crippling strike is causing extreme havoc and it
is his responsibility to fix it? When is he going to do it?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell my hon. colleague I did have to meet a few
payrolls and some of them were not all that easy.
I also now have the responsibility to see that Part I of the
Canada Labour Code is adhered to. Mediation happens to be part
of that process.
All I ask my hon. colleague to do is let the process work. Why
the process is having trouble is people doing nothing but talking
about bringing in legislation.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last Friday, in response to a question
from the Bloc Quebecois, the Minister of Human Resources
Development announced a 20 cent reduction in EI premium rates,
which represents a $1.4 billion reduction in the approximately $7
billion annual fund surplus. In our view, the reduction could have
been larger.
Could the minister act on the second part of the Bloc
Quebecois' recommendation that he use a significant proportion of
the annual surplus of several billions to increase protection for
the unemployed, who have been reduced to poverty by the reform?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition member should be
thanking us for approving, for the fourth year in a row, a
reduction in EI premiums that this year will be the largest
reduction ever.
We are obviously in the midst of an extremely important EI
reform. Naturally our government wishes to be prudent. It is a
mark of this government that it has shown fiscal restraint in
getting where it is today, and we want to be sure that the EI fund
will be there, even if things were to become a little more
difficult for workers generally.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are happy that the minister has
responded to the Bloc Quebecois' demand for lower premiums to
offset the increase in QPP and CPP premiums.
Could the minister not take advantage of this clearly improved
situation of a fund surplus to return to the families of the
unemployed part of these surplus billions?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the
House, we have brought about the largest EI reform in 25 years. We
are following this reform very closely to be sure that it serves
Canadians well.
Of course, we are going to continue to monitor the situation
very closely and make adjustments in accordance with what we
believe to be citizens' most pressing needs.
* * *
[English]
TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on this
issue of tobacco advertising on race cars, I have a brand new
article here published just a week ago in the prestigious journal
the Lancet.
This article shows absolutely clearly that the most important
influence on young men starting smoking is race cars. Which of
the Liberals is going to stand up and finally admit their U-turn
on this issue is absolutely wrong?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is committed
to reducing the use of tobacco in this country, recognizing that
it does have an influence on the health of our young people and
Canadians in general.
The minister has responded to this question in a number of
venues and circumstances and he, like us all, believes and
understands the importance of managing tobacco use in this
country.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I took the
opportunity to speak to this researcher in Britain just a few
moments ago. She said that this information was so important
that she could not even let her study go to the end of its normal
lifetime, that she had to put this information in front of the
public immediately.
1435
The British prime minister did his U-turn when he got a $2
million gift. Why has our prime minister made the similar
U-turn?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again, this government
understands the importance of reducing tobacco use among Canadian
youth.
We have, in a very focused and clear way, identified and brought
forward legislation which will better these circumstances for
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with the Kyoto
conference approaching, Environment Canada's research studies
demonstrate that global warming will have catastrophic consequences on
the St. Lawrence River, the Canadian north, public health, and much
more.
With so many arguments, will the minister admit she showed weakness
by failing to convince the western provinces of the need to go further
in the fight against greenhouse gas emissions?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the federal government has worked very
well with all the provinces and territories across this country
to discuss the very serious, real issue of climate change.
The provinces gave the federal government flexibility in setting
targets and timelines for Kyoto. We will present those targets
and timelines before the meeting in Kyoto.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while all those
who oppose restrictions are trying to figure out how much vigorous
measures would cost, does the minister not agree that she could make
herself more useful by asking her department to figure out how much our
inaction would cost?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it will cost us quite a bit to take
action on this very serious issue, but it will also cost us a
great deal if we do not take action on this issue.
It is not just the federal government but provinces, business,
industry and municipalities which will take action.
Right now we see, for example, companies in the automotive
industry scrambling over each other in competition for future
markets. They are producing vehicles with lower emissions.
Municipalities across the country, like Toronto, are taking
actions to reduce emissions.
All sectors, including the federal government, will take their
part.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 14 year old Reena Virk was just brutally murdered in my
riding by a group of teenagers. This is just the tip of the
iceberg. Violent crime among youth has doubled since 1986.
Vancouver Island is in shock and communities and families are
destroyed. Yet while this happens the government dithers and the
casualties continue to mount.
For the safety of all Canadians, when will the government and
the justice minister take action on youth crime?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I think
everybody in this House would agree that the events which took
place in Saanich over the weekend are tragic, to say the least,
and must be of great concern to all of us.
In addition let me say, as I believe all hon. members of the
House know, that I have made it very plain that one of my goals
is to reform the Young Offenders Act to deal with serious, repeat
and violent young offenders in a way that condemns their
activities.
I have made it very plain that I will respond to the standing
committee report—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Wild Rose.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, six
girls and one boy have been charged with aggravated assault. The
maximum penalty for this crime is three years.
This government has been flapping its mouth for four years and
has done nothing about the Young Offenders Act. Why does this
minister not get up right now and tell the 90% of people who want
the Young Offenders Act gone that she loves it, that it is a
Liberal document and that it is here to stay? Why does she not
tell them that?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I
have said we are in the midst of a consultative process in
relation to reforming the Young Offenders Act.
If the hon. member did his homework he would find that 90% of
Canadians do not want to have the Young Offenders Act abolished,
but they would like it to be reformed to better reflect their
values, and that is what this government is doing.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday afternoon, in Saint-Jean-Chrysostome, a CN railway
car literally split open, spilling 80,000 litres of concentrated
sulphuric acid 400 meters away from the downtown core and the Etchemin
River.
Obviously, the bad state of disrepair of this railway car was the cause
of this accident.
1440
My question is for the Minister of Transport who is responsible for
the security of the rolling stock. How can the minister explain this
accident? Did the accident occur simply because his department did not
do its job properly?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are always concerned when a railway accident
occurs or whether there is some problem as happened yesterday.
Safety is Transport Canada's top priority. There are methods of
ensuring safety and there are procedures that are put in place. A
full investigation is always done when an accident occurs.
I am sure that when the facts are known we will be able to
determine the true cause of this particular problem.
* * *
HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The minister will know that the American government has proposed
legislative framework for a NAFTA superhighway running from
the Mexican to the Canadian border.
Can the minister tell us what is being done, if anything, to
ensure that our highway system is adequate to deal with this
American trade route?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of growing importance given the
amount of trade between Canada and the United States and of
course going into Mexico.
Transport Canada has successfully co-funded projects to automate
border crossings at Windsor and Fort Erie and we are also trying
to explore the use of intelligent transportation systems to
facilitate the movement of goods and people.
When we talk about NAFTA highways we are not just talking about
paved asphalt. We are also talking about rail links and the
integration, the intermodality between the various forms of
transport. This is a priority for our government that we will
have to work further on in the months ahead.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister and this government have already had four
years to do something about the Young Offenders Act. We wait
till February and then how long will we have to wait before
something is done?
Youth are the primary victims in youth crime. When are members
of this House and Canadians going to see this government scrap
the Young Offenders Act and replace it with legislation that
works?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member
that my predecessor amended the Young Offenders Act and we should
keep in mind that for certain serious crimes he doubled the
period of time a young offender could serve in prison.
What we have done is deemed 16 and 17-year olds to be adults for
the purposes of transfer to adult court. So in fact this
government has acted in relation to some of the concerns
surrounding the Young Offenders Act.
If the hon. member is suggesting that more needs to be done, I
do not disagree. I would ask him to work co-operatively with me
and with the standing committee on justice.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): There she goes
again, Mr. Speaker. She is just absolutely losing it because she
talks about a great piece of legislation and all the changes, and
nothing has changed. It is evident from what has just happened
across the country.
While she is wining and dining the elite, she does not talk to
the real people to find out the solutions. Why don't you publish
their names? Why don't you let the people know who they are? Why
don't you put some meaning—
The Speaker: My colleague, always address your question
to the Chair. The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no idea to whom the
hon. member is referring in relation to the wining and dining of
the elite.
Let me assure the hon. member that if he genuinely wants to
participate in a discussion around important issues like the
naming of young offenders in certain situations, I ask him to
work with this government because those are the very issues on
which we are working.
* * *
BANKS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Today it was the turn of the Bank of Montreal to reveal record
profits of $1.3 billion. Meanwhile bank services charges have
skyrocketed by 25% or more in the last three years and inflation
sits at 1.5%.
Enough is enough. Healthy profits are fine but gouging the
consumer is not fine.
1445
In light of that, will the minister now screw up his courage and
call for a parliamentary inquiry into bank service charges so the
banks have to come before parliament and fully disclose and
justify their charges to consumers?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could
lay a few facts before the House.
I am sure the hon. member would welcome, as his leader already
has, reasonable profits for the banks. This is for two reasons.
First, profits mean that investors including pensioners benefit.
Second, increased profits mean vast increases in revenues from
taxes on these profits for Canadians. Last year the banks paid
$4.9 billion in federal, provincial and municipal levies.
If the member is concerned that their profits are too high
perhaps he should realize—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake
Centre.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In 1993 the Bank of Montreal wanted to buy the Harris Bank of
Chicago. Under the American Community Reinvestment Act, U.S.
regulators prevented the Bank of Montreal from closing the deal
and getting a charter until the bank committed nearly $500
million for small business loans and community development.
In light of the record Canadian bank profits we are seeing on a
daily basis, when will the minister introduce a community
reinvestment act in Canada to make sure small business can access
at fair rates capital they need desperately for their business?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the idea behind
a community reinvestment act is that deposits taken out of a
particular area will be equalled by investments or loans made
back into that particular area.
If we look at the figures of the Bank of Canada from last year,
seven provinces in Canada would be major losers under that type
of proposal, including the four Atlantic provinces.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, financial
mismanagement at the Oromocto first nation has left a toll of
casualties both on and off reserve. Even with the $500,000 cash
advance the band cannot meet its obligations. Band staff is
being laid off. Men, women and children have not received a
paycheque or support payments in six weeks. Contractual
agreements have been broken and have not been honoured.
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. Will the minister take the necessary steps to
ensure that all financial commitments and contractual
agreements—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the financial
difficulties being faced by the Oromocto first nation. A
co-manager has been put in place to assist and to provide advice
on the fiscal decisions that are being made there.
The department is watching the results of that intervention very
closely. We are committed to ensuring the restoration of fiscal
stability to that first nation.
I would ask the hon. member to continue.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, she is after your job.
The Speaker: I sort of like it here.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I guess
I underestimated my own power in the House. I appreciate the
minister's concern.
A great deal of hardship is being placed on individuals on and
off reserve. That is the point I really want to make.
These financial hardships reach right down into the Fundy region
where fishermen in Grand Manan have been left out and financial
commitments not kept. Simply put, I would like the minister to
act in the best interest of all sides, not only the Indian
community but those people who are suffering financial hardship
in that area.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would again indicate that
the department is working with the first nation through a
co-manager to focus on the need to restore fiscal certainty to
that community.
I would just caution the House, however, not to generalize from
a particular case. While some first nations need remedial
support, the vast majority of them are working within the
constraints of their fiscal realities.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has characterized
as heavy handed and inflexible Revenue Canada's announcement that
even without postal service Canadians still have to make their
payments on time.
1450
Given that the postal strike is making it difficult for many
individuals and businesses to send their payments to Revenue
Canada, is the department prepared to show any flexibility and
understanding during the course of this strike for late or missed
payments?
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we understand there is
some difficulty right now. Revenue Canada has taken the steps
necessary to assist Canadians to meet their obligations and to
ensure that we deliver the child tax benefit credits for which we
are responsible.
Businesses and individuals can make their payments at any
financial institution. They can go to any of our customs offices
or our Revenue Canada offices.
I also remind the federation that we have fairness legislation
at Revenue Canada. We are fair.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government refuses to take action in the postal strike, which
actually affects millions of people. Yet it does not waste any
time when it comes to rewarding incompetence with promotions,
particularly if it involves the Somalia affair.
Kim Campbell, Consul General in Los Angeles; Bob Fowler,
Ambassador to the UN; and now Vice Admiral Murray has landed a
whale of a job in the fisheries department.
When will the disgraced Somalia commander, Colonel Labbé, get
his reward?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows a proposed
promotion is being held in abeyance. The matter is still under
review. It will be examined.
* * *
[Translation]
INARI
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
A few days ago, we learned that INARI, an agency accredited to the
United Nations Economic and Social Council, was involved in a fraud case
against some business people from Quebec.
What representations does the government intend to make to the UN
to ensure tighter control over agencies seeking accreditation and what
support does the federal government intend to give to the victims of
this fraud?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, for the last two years we have been working very
actively with the United Nations to ensure that a whole series of
financial administrative reforms would be instituted.
For example, Canada led the strong advocacy for zero growth in
the UN budget. We have also been leading the support for
reorganization, and the secretary general has brought in reforms.
We will continue to work actively. Where there are questions of
fraud we will support any action to make sure those are clarified
and cleaned up as soon as possible.
* * *
PORTS CANADA
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
during the past weeks the Minister of Transport has been asked
what he knew about alleged wrongdoings by senior Ports Canada
police officials.
Within one month of an official complaint being made to the
RCMP, the director general of Ports Canada, Sidney Peckford, was
removed from his position.
Given that the officials with Ports Canada will not comment,
will the minister tell the House why the director was removed and
how this relates to the RCMP investigation into the alleged
wrongdoings?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, by now the hon. member would have seen a press
release from Ports Canada which answers his question. The fact
is that the port police across the country are being wound up.
The individual in question is terminating his job at the end of
this year.
On the matter of the complaints that have been filed, the RCMP
has evaluated them and has opened an investigation. It would be
imprudent for me to say anything further.
* * *
FINANCE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
we have just learned today that the Bank of Canada has announced
a quarter per cent rise in the prime lending rate, supposedly
justified by our overheated economy. In this so-called
overheated economy there are more than 1.4 million unemployed
Canadians.
My question is for the finance minister. How could he support a
government policy guaranteed to create more unemployment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member ought to look at the facts. If he would
take a look at what happened to medium and long term interest
rates following the last Bank of Canada increase of 25 basis
points, he would find that long term rates went down virtually
across the spectrum.
They went down because inflationary expectations went down.
That is what really important. People invest on the basis of
long term rates. Mortgage rates are at a record level. It is
because of both the fiscal and monetary policies being pursued by
the government and the Bank of Canada.
* * *
1455
MUSEUMS
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the government is proposing a Holocaust display for the Canadian
War Museum. To put it mildly, controversy rages around this
decision.
Because of the importance of the Holocaust display, why is the
minister bearing it at the war museum? She knows full well that
the Canadian Museum of Civilization has far more traffic and is a
far more appropriate place.
Will she commit today, if the Holocaust display is to go ahead,
that it will be put at the Canadian Museum of Civilization so
that it gets the exposure it deserves?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly happy to see the interest of the hon.
member in the workings of the Canadian War Museum.
He will no doubt be aware that earlier this week the Museum of
Civilization, through the board of directors and the war museum,
established a consultative process to ensure that every facet of
society, and in particular the veteran community, is widely
consulted.
They are expecting to have an end to that consultation by their
next meeting in February. Whatever they come up with, I am sure
the member and I will be working together to ensure the direction
set by the board of directors becomes reality.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S PARTITION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
On November 21, in Minneapolis, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs stated, and I quote: “Nationalism in Quebec is a civic rather
that an ethnic issue”.
Why is the minister speaking from both sides of his mouth since he
stated the opposite last week, in his letter to Mr. Jacques Brassard,
speaking of an ethno-linguistic cleavage to describe Quebec's plan?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for giving me the opportunity to explain to him for the
umpteenth time that Quebec society is not the problem. It is a great
society that must stay within Canada.
The problem is not Quebec nationalism, which is an open kind of
nationalism that can help all Canadians. The problem is the secessionist
option, which is aimed at taking Canada away from Quebeckers, when we
know that the vast majority of Quebeckers want to remain Canadians.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Last week students at Carleton University heard that as many as
13 programs could be cut. Students protested against the cuts
yesterday and know the role the federal government is playing in
the slow destruction of education.
Since 1995 alone $1.5 billion has been taken from post-secondary
education. Students at Carleton and across Canada want to know
when the government will listen to students and restore funding
to education.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
giving me the opportunity to discuss in the House this important
situation for students. Our government is working very hard on
it.
The Minister of Finance has already brought about a number of
very important fiscal measures to help students in his budget
last year, and we must thank him for that.
We are also working very hard right now on the Canada student
loans program. We want to fix it. We want to improve it again.
We recognized there is a problem. We are meeting right now with
the provinces, with the lenders and with the students'
associations that are doing great work.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Sixteen and seventeen year olds are old enough to drive, old
enough to leave school and old enough to get married. Yet they
are not old enough to be held fully responsible for their
criminal behaviour.
In view of the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are quite capable
of understanding the difference between right and wrong, will the
minister undertake in her review of the Young Offenders Act that
she will commit to the House that 16 and 17 year olds will be
removed from the provisions of the Young Offenders Act and
prosecuted in adult court?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should think the hon. member
is aware that my predecessor made an important change to the
Young Offenders Act, which in fact presumes that 16 and 17 year
olds for serious crimes are adults.
In fact what we see in many provinces now is a large number of
16 and 17 year olds being transferred to adult court and being
dealt with as adults.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the secretary of state for agriculture.
There are a lot of farmers in the riding of Beauce and I understand
that the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec have come to an
agreement to provide Quebec farm producers with a security net.
Can the secretary of state tell the House what our farmers stand to
gain from this agreement?
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for Beauce and take this opportunity to reassure
farmers not only from Beauce, but from all over Quebec.
Yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture, always sensitive to the
needs of farm producers, signed with his Quebec counterpart a
$202 million framework agreement on income protection. Out of this $202
million, $146 million will go to income security, $49 million to crop
insurance and an additional $7 million to vegetable producers.
Co-operation is always reassuring.
* * *
[English]
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of
the House the presence in the gallery of members of the Portfolio
Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Petitions
of the Republic of South Africa.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I have two questions of privilege and two
points of order.
I have two questions of privilege to deal with. I received
notification from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I
also received notice during question period from the hon. member
for Burlington. My question to the hon. member for Burlington is
does this question of privilege arise from question period today?
Ms. Paddy Torsney: No.
The Speaker: I will take the question of privilege from
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I would ask the
hon. member to give me notification at least one hour ahead of
time.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 48, I raise a question
of privilege regarding the premature disclosure of a committee
report. I base this question on new information obtained through
access to information.
On October 1, 1997 I raised a question of privilege on a related
matter, namely that a breach of privilege occurred when the
industry committee's in camera draft report was released to the
public. I indicated then that according to access to information
documents the industry minister and industry department
bureaucrats were in possession on April 18, 1997 of draft copies
of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.
The final report of the committee entitled “Review of section
14 of the Patent Act amendment, 1992” was reported to the House
of Commons on April 23, 1997, five days later.
On October 9, 1997 the Speaker ruled that while the matter raised
was important, it was not appropriate for the Speaker to
intervene at that time and I stress at that time.
1505
Access to information files show that House of Commons legal
counsel argued on August 25, 1997 that the release of the draft
committee report “could give rise to a question of parliamentary
privilege”. At the time legal counsel advised that the draft
report not be released. The letter and subsequent release of the
draft report would indicate there are no formal rules governing
the handling of committee documents.
I would contend that if the House of Commons precedent is the
guide, the new information obtained through access to information
provides the Speaker with the authority to intervene at this time
since on August 25, 1997 it now appears House of Commons legal
counsel was made aware the draft report would be released.
Responsibility for House of Commons legal counsel lies with the
Speaker. This new information indicates the matter should
therefore be dealt with by the House of Commons as a whole and
not left in the hands of committees themselves.
By the same token a new element to the body of precedent in
these matters has been introduced since persons under your
responsibility were consulted and their advice on a matter of
parliamentary privilege was not followed.
In the October 9, 1997 ruling, the Speaker referenced Speaker
Fraser's December 7, 1991 decision indicating the Chair does not
intervene in the proceedings of a committee unless a problem has
been reported by the committee to the House, or in extremely
unusual circumstances. The new information indicates there are
indeed unusual circumstances.
For clarity I again refer to Beauchesne citation 877 on page 241
which states that no act done at any committee should be divulged
before it has been presented to the House. Beauchesne citation
877 also states that the publication of proceedings of committees
conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before
they are available to members will constitute a breach of
privilege. Also Beauchesne citation 57, page 18 states “the
House has in the past regarded the publication of the proceedings
or reports of committees sitting in camera to be a breach of
privilege”.
Therefore I move that this House refer the matter regarding
rules for the handling of committee documents to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The Speaker: First, to the hon. member who has just
spoken, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if I did find
a prima facie case for a question of privilege, then I would of
course invite the hon. member to make a motion, but the motion is
not in order right now.
On the same question of privilege, I will hear from the
government House leader.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Chair has
ruled on this point in the past. The new information being raised
today does not change the essence of what has been ruled on
before. I think there are a number of points for the Chair to
consider.
First is that this issue happened in committee and should be
raised in committee. The Chair is usually reluctant to interfere
with this, save and except for one item, that a report from the
committee should of course be made available to this House before
being made public. However that is an issue about which the
committee itself should lodge a complaint before the House.
The committee in question was in a previous Parliament and
because it was in a previous Parliament. That committee and the
Parliament in question has ceased to exist with the calling of
the election.
The new privileges claimed by this Parliament were claimed by
yourself, Mr. Speaker, on the first day that we sat. Therefore
any action being raised now has to relate to something that
occurred after the date at which you claimed the privileges for
this Parliament.
1510
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that if the hon.
member is claiming that her own privileges have in some way been
offended, she was not at the time a member of Parliament when the
incident in question was alleged to have occurred.
The Chair might consider those points before adjudicating.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague's question of
privilege with respect to the report being provided outside the
committee before it was released to the members.
I was an associate member of that committee, Mr. Speaker, when
the House was in session. As you will recall it was leading up
to the election campaign. There was a great deal of problem with
respect to maintaining a full complement of members in the House
the day before they called the election.
With respect to the point of privilege, I want to add two
points. The government House leader indicated that the member who
just raised the question of privilege was not here and her
personal privilege was not in question. She has raised this on
behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus. We believe that the
privileges of all members of the House who were members at that
time and continue to be members have been breached. We feel this
has to be reviewed by you, Sir, and that you should report back
to the House at your leisure.
With respect to whether this happened in committee, obviously
there was a request for this information. It really falls
outside the realm of the committee because it was external to the
committee. The people who requested it were not members of the
committee. Therefore the committee is partially responsible but
we do not know for sure.
Mr. Speaker, you might recall that the minutes of the industry
committee which reviewed this particular document that was leaked
in advance of being provided to members of Parliament were in
camera and were destroyed when the election was called and
dissolution of Parliament took place. We really do not know for
sure what happened but that, in my view, is a breach of the
privileges of all members of Parliament as it pertains to this
issue.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I well recall the
decision I made earlier in this Parliament.
The hon. member has referred to new information. I take it she
has documents. I would ask her to table those documents with me.
I want to have a look at them and take into consideration what
the government House leader has said as well as the comments of
the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. I will look at
everything and if it is necessary, I will return to the House.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today in question period in frustration I used a word
that was inappropriate. I do apologize for that. I hope the
Speaker would realize that is not in character with the way I
speak in this House.
However I would ask the Speaker if he could enlighten me as to
why, when other people use words which are inappropriate, the
Speaker rises and tells them that he finds that word
inappropriate and asks them to withdraw it and then the question
is answered. Why did he not do that in my case but simply passed
me over and I did not get a response to my question?
The Speaker: Far be it for me to ever pass you over my
hon. colleague.
There are very few words, if any, that are of and by themselves
unparliamentary. For the most part it has to do with the tone of
the delivery. It has to do with the reaction and whether it
causes disorder in the House.
I saw that the hon. member was frustrated. I saw that the hon.
member used words that he would not, as he has said, ordinarily
use in this House. I thought that the words used today and the
fashion in which they were used were a bit provocative. I
thought they were provocative enough that I would rule the
statement out of order.
Another day in my fallibility I may say we will let it go and
see what happens. I did not want to put you under the duress of
withdrawing words. Sometimes when a member is frustrated like
that, I like to give the member a little bit of time.
As the hon. member has stated, I know he has a very wide choice
of words he can use.
If he would consider not using those words again, it would
probably help the House.
1515
However, I thank him for his willingness to apologize to the
House. Of course, on behalf of the House, I accept.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege.
The Speaker: Usually when there is a question of
privilege, if it arises out of the question period itself, I will
hear it because it is here, this day. However, the rules are
that I should have at least one hour's notice if it is a question
of privilege which occurred prior to the question period.
I would invite the hon. member to put her question of privilege
to me tomorrow, as soon after the question period as we can get
to it. If she would give me an inkling of what it is about, I
would appreciate that, just so I have an idea of what it is
about.
However, I will hear it tomorrow, now that she has given me
notice.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CALGARY DECLARATION
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this
proposal and I am happy to be able to describe the vision of our
government for a strong and united Canada. I wish emphasize in this
House that our greatest priority is to strengthen Canadian unity. I
would also like to say that we are convinced that we will succeed in
creating again the sense of purpose that allowed us to build this great
country and that has carried it through to what it is today.
[English]
We are trustees of a tolerant society, one that welcomes people
of all nations and all races. Canada has earned an international
reputation as a champion of human rights. We recognize that
“one size fits all policies and approaches” will not work in a
country composed of such a rich cultural mosaic and have found
ways to accommodate our differences.
Ours is a democracy where we can agree to disagree, but still
get along. There is ample room for the provinces to manoeuvre
within the framework of federalism while at the same time
enjoying all the benefits of this larger, more powerful alliance.
[Translation]
It is exactly because we are Canadians that we have the freedom to
maintain different languages and different legal traditions, to
celebrate what makes us different in cultural terms and what prevents us
from disappearing in a melting pot.
Canada has proven to the rest of the world that it is possible to
live together in harmony, mutual respect and mutual trust. It is
possible, because we share the same values of peace, generosity and
justice, while maintaining our history and our traditions.
On the social union, over the years, we have created a network of
policies and social programs that reflect our common values and that
form the basis of our common identity.
I would like to add that it is this common experience, this mutual
trust that has allowed us, more than legal definitions or constitutional
considerations, to stay together and to develop in a country that is the
envy of the world. According to the United Nations human development
index, need I remind you, our country is listed at the very top among
the world's nations.
[English]
I want to highlight several social initiatives which demonstrate
that our core values remain the key to national unity and which
clearly illustrate that there is more that unites us than divides
us. On the national child benefit, the collaborative approach the
Government of Canada and the provinces and territories have taken
with the national child benefit system is a perfect example. In
the summer of 1996 the first ministers made child poverty a
priority and agreed to work together with the Government of
Canada on an integrated child benefit.
1520
When representatives of the two levels of government focused on
the real issue on the table, giving children the start they need
to become healthy, happy, educated and productive adults, there
was no room for partisan politics. Everyone recognized that
investing in children is vital to our collective future.
[Translation]
Whichever government they were representing, all the negotiators
realized that what mattered most was not which level of government
should be providing the funding or delivering the services. The aim was
simply to provide an opportunity for a better future for children living
in poverty.
They all recognized that reducing child poverty requires a co-operative
strategy, a national effort bringing together federal,
provincial and territorial jurisdictions to work towards the creation of
constructive partnerships. The fact that we have succeeded in
implementing the national child benefit demonstrates how Canada can work
better when we work hand in hand.
[English]
Like the national child benefit, the new national children's
agenda will also include the well-being of Canadian children and
in the process strengthen this country's social union. Launching
a national children's agenda is an opportunity to work together
across provinces and sectors toward a common goal of building a
better future for Canada's children.
We have enjoyed similar success in securing federal-provincial
agreements on changes to the Canada Pension Plan. We will
jointly shepherd reforms to the CPP to secure a viable and a
sustainable public pension system for today's retirees and
tomorrow's.
We hope to duplicate this co-operation in the coming months as
we work with our provincial and territorial colleagues on other
social priorities. Persons with disabilities are a priority of
federal-provincial-territorial social services ministers. We
will collaborate closely with our partners to develop a shared
agenda to better meet their needs. We are currently working with
other governments to put in place a replacement program for the
vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons program.
In the same spirit we are working with the provinces and
territories to create employment and learning opportunities for
Canadian young people. For example, we are committed to
developing a mentorship program in partnership with provincial
and territorial governments and the private sector.
Also, working with our provincial partners we will continue to
improve the Canada student loans program to increase access to
learning opportunities for Canadian youth.
[Translation]
I would like to remind the hon. member that federalism can also
adjust to the economic climate. For example, Quebec has long been
seeking jurisdiction over manpower training, arguing that local
authorities are in a better position to respond to needs for skills
development, and are often capable of responding more quickly.
Our offer is without precedent and involves the transfer to the
provinces of responsibilities in the area of labour market development.
This will allow Quebec to design and manage its own manpower training
programs.
Through agreements to develop the labour market, employment
programs and services worth $2 billion annually—funded through
the reform of the employment insurance program—will be handed
over to the provinces choosing to assume these responsibilities.
Up to now, Quebec and seven other provinces have signed agreements
on new provisions for the labour market.
Canadians are fed up with federal-provincial squabbling. They
want us to work together to create worthwhile and sustainable
social programs for the 21st century.
Thanks to the many innovative measures I have mentioned, the
Government of Canada has clearly shown its willingness to make the
necessary changes to modernize Canada.
1525
We are finding new ways to increase Canada's effectiveness for
us all, and the result is not independent governments, but rather
interdependent governments.
[English]
This partnership approach offers tangible proof that by working
together, governments can strengthen the social union. We can
advance a common social agenda and in the process, create more
targeted government programs, improve service delivery and
achieve significant cost savings.
I am suggesting that if we are willing to give each other a
chance and really work at it, Canada can become whatever we
collectively make it.
[Translation]
If Canada did not already exist, no doubt we would be doing
our best to invent it. So let us celebrate Canada as a model
nation, one that inspires the international community and that will
continue to make a remarkable contribution to the world in the next
millennium.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my
colleague's speech. She gives manpower training as an example of
successful federalism.
At this time, it can be seen that there is a big problem in
that area. When someone says that manpower training is being
handed back to the provinces, while at the same time a duplicate
youth strategy is being created, that the Federal Regional
Development Office is taking steps to encourage young entrepreneurs
alongside the economic development corporations already in
existence, that millennium scholarships are created, another
example of federal meddling in education and a measure designed
with the next election in mind, this of course gives government
members something to boast about. But all of this is in an area
which is not in any way part of its jurisdiction.
With such examples of federal interference coming on top of
all the previous failures to change the Canadian federal system, is
it any wonder that Quebeckers are highly sceptical about the
Calgary declaration? I find, moreover, that it contains nothing at
all that Quebeckers have long been calling for.
Would there not be a way in this House for the federal
government to show a real desire to respond to Quebec's demands,
which have been expressed for many years, with a position that
could at least meet the traditional needs of Quebec?
At the present time, the Calgary declaration does not even
contain anything for the Quebec federalists who want to see Canada
changed.
Could the hon. member not pass these desires and wishes on to
her government in order to convince it to modify its position?
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human
Resources Development has said repeatedly, reform in under way and the
provinces will be able to make their own decisions. That is what we are
doing.
The Prime Minister said he wanted to make youth a priority and
that, in the next millennium, the federal government, on this side, will
be the one making decisions about grants. That is all right, that is
what we wanted it to do.
But this does not make a bit of difference: it seems that, whatever
we do, the Bloc always wants more, but not everyone in Quebec agrees.
Many people in Quebec tell us they want a federal presence there, they
want us there.
In spite of the fact that we give them responsibilities and take
major decisions, people in Quebec tell us: “We want you too, we want the
federal government as well”.
While listening to my friend opposite, I was reminded of Pierre
Roy. Every morning for the past 21 months, he has been raising the
Canadian flag with some veteran comrades of his. The message Pierre Roy
is sending is that he knows what a divided country is like, because he
fought for such countries on behalf of Canada.
My hon. friend must understand that the provinces are requesting
that we share. They are asking that we have discussions with them and
make decisions together.
1530
Things are going will very well with the provinces. Many programs
were developed in co-operation with other provinces. But as you all
know, it is difficult to get the Bloc Quebecois or Lucien Bouchard to
sit down with us so we can work together.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Laval East
may ask a question, but it must be short.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat
surprised by the answer the hon. member just gave to my colleague.
I will ask her a question along the same lines. When the hon.
member says that Quebeckers absolutely want the federal government to
get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, in areas that come
under Quebec's jurisdiction, is she implying that every Quebec
government in the past 30 years was wrong in making traditional claims
regarding Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including education? Is the
hon. member telling us that all Quebec governments of the past 30 years
were wrong?
Ms. Claudette Bradshaw: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to
tell the hon. member that Quebeckers want the Quebec government to sit
at the table, with the federal government and with the other provincial
governments, to take part in the decisions being made. Major decisions
will be made over the next five years at the federal and provincial
levels. My message was that Quebeckers surely want their provincial
government to sit at the table with the other provinces.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to speak to the official opposition motion regarding the need
for consultation on national unity.
We have the good fortune to live in one of the best countries
in the world. Canada, with its prosperous economy, is a stable
democracy that respects the values and aspirations of all
Canadians. No other country can point to such a free and tolerant
society, where diversity and difference are accepted, as witnessed
by the languages and cultures of its citizens.
These are all reasons to be proud and to view Canada's future
with optimism. Cooperation between the federal government and the
provinces can only assure us of a better future by revitalizing our
Constitution.
[English]
Effort is required to strengthen the Canadian federation. This
effort has been made by the premiers of nine provinces who
met in Calgary last September. These premiers drafted a
declaration which embodies some of the basic principles that all
Canadians share to guide future efforts in uniting this country.
What is monumental about the process surrounding the Calgary
declaration is its emphasis on consultation. Unlike the Meech
Lake and Charlottetown accords, the Canadian public is being
consulted at the front end of the process about its vision of
Canada in the 21st century. We hope that the public, the
premiers and this government are listening.
[Translation]
The Calgary declaration provides a way to renew the debate on
ways of improving our country. It includes principles universally
applicable in Canada and not limited just to eastern or western
provinces, principles applicable in Quebec, even though the premier
of Quebec was not at the Calgary conference.
Mr. Bouchard said he would not take part in any public
consultation process. He is not unaware, however, that if the
Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed, it was because
Canadians were not consulted. He adds that he has no interest in
consulting Quebeckers as to whether they truly want to participate
in Canadian society.
By taking this approach, Mr. Bouchard is standing in the way of
democratic debate in Quebec and in the way of Quebeckers' right to
participate in free and open consultations with their elected
officials on ways of becoming their own masters in the Canadian
Confederation. The Quebec government alone is preventing
Quebeckers from having a say in the definition of their future.
1535
These consultations are essential to achieve a proper balance in
the Constitution. The Calgary declaration proposes ways to rebalance the
sharing of powers and responsibilities.
Of the seven principles found in the declaration, three—Nos. 1, 2
and 6—underline the equality of all citizens and of the provinces. The
Reform Party is especially committed to this principle of equality. The
first principle ensures that the equal rights and the freedoms enjoyed
by all Canadians under the charter of rights and freedoms are recognized
as the basis for any constitutional negotiation.
The second principle puts forth an idea that is not new, but that
has been neglected in constitutional negotiations over the last 15
years, and that is that all provinces are equal.
Canadians have reiterated in all consultations that the provinces are
equal and that none is entitled to special constitutional status.
This is stated again clearly in the sixth principle, where it is
said that “if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one
province, these powers must be available to all provinces”. Any
constitutional amendment that provides more powers to the provinces must
do so in a way that benefits equally all the provinces.
This equality is one of the things that unites us as Canadians. The
provinces may be equal, but that does not mean that they are all the
same or identical.
That is why the declaration contains principles that recognize
the diversity of Canada, the differences that make it a great
country. Principles Nos. 3, 4 and 5 state the unique character of
Canadian society, including its “diversity, tolerance,
compassion and equality of opportunity” that allow it to be
without rival in the world.
Respect for diversity and equality forms the basis of Canadian
unity. The unique character of Quebec society, including its French
speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law is a
fundamental element of the fabric of Canadian society.
The declaration avoids the basic errors of the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords, which included special treatment for a province
or a people. Canadians are opposed to the idea of incorporating in the
Constitution a justiciable “distinct society” clause or any other phrase
that would contribute mostly to divide instead of uniting the country by
giving a province special status or greater powers.
The declaration emphasizes the importance of diversity within the
framework of equality of status between the provinces, and, in doing so,
it offers a clear departure from constitutional phraseologies that have
failed in the past.
This principle defines a framework within which the federal
government and the provinces can co-operate to find a new balance for
the Confederation by excluding the federal government from exclusively
provincial jurisdictions.
The Reform Party has been calling for a long time for a better
balance within the Canadian federation between the federal government,
the provinces and the population itself. Our party has developed 20
proposals to strengthen the Canadian union. Most of them can be
implemented without going through lengthy federal-provincial
negotiations or without having to amend the Constitution.
1540
They are calling upon the federal government to withdraw from
areas of jurisdiction which are more suited to the provinces and
they are calling for the reform of federal institutions like the
Senate, the supreme court and the Bank of Canada.
[English]
There is a critical role for the federal government in
jurisdictions of national and international importance, including
defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulation of
financial institutions, the development of national standards
through interprovincial co-operation and in the areas of criminal
law and reform of the criminal justice system.
[Translation]
But the federal government ought no longer to have the option
of meddling in areas which are the exclusive purview of the
provinces. The services and powers of this government must be
decentralized so that the government in the best position to serve
the population will be the one responsible. The costs and the
inefficiencies caused by jurisdictional overlap between the federal
government and the provinces is what lies behind most of the
frictions threatening national unity.
The Reform Party recommends that the federal government
refrain from intervening in areas such as natural resources,
manpower training, social services, language, culture, municipal
affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation. The provinces
are in a better position to meet Canadians' needs in these areas.
[English]
The federal government should be prevented from using its
spending power to intervene in provincial jurisdiction. The
federal cash block grants to the provinces should be replaced
with tax points at a fixed percentage of federal tax revenue
whose value would increase as the province's economy grows to
allow each province to enhance social security of its citizens.
Parliament should also pass an amendment unilaterally to the
Constitution forbidding future deficit spending and massive
increases in spending without approval through a referendum.
Lastly, a constitutional amendment should be passed to abolish
the federal government's ability to disallow and reserve
provincial legislation and to legislate under the declaratory
power in areas of such jurisdiction.
We also believe very strongly there is need for further reform
of federal institutions, particularly in western Canada with a
growing economy and population. We find institutions like the
Senate and the supreme court, the Bank of Canada and the
appointment of lieutenant governors increasingly anachronisms
that do not represent the growing parts of this country.
We must reform those institutions, among other things, through
an elected, equal and effective Senate. Supreme court appointees
should be nominated by the provinces, as should directors of the
Bank of Canada and lieutenant governors.
Finally, we also believe that any future changes to the
Constitution ought to be approved by the people in a referendum
first.
[Translation]
The renewal of the Canadian federation of necessity involves
the reform of federal institutions. We have good reason to believe
that Quebeckers do not share their leaders' obsession with symbolic
gestures. They are demanding significant changes. The citizens of
Quebec agree with westerners that the federation must be rebalanced
and that real changes must be made. Quebeckers and westerners have
a great deal in common.
Quebeckers and westerners acknowledge that the federal
government is interfering in areas exclusively under provincial
jurisdiction by imposing national standards and by using its
spending power not as an encouragement but more often as a way of
ensuring that the provinces comply with its wishes.
Quebeckers and westerners agree that the provinces are in a
better position to govern in areas such as culture, language,
manpower, social services, housing, tourism and a good many others.
Quebeckers and westerners agree that the federal government
must give up certain powers and give more power to the regions.
There is only one point which Quebeckers and westerners do not
have in common. Quebeckers have been excluded by their government
from the process of drafting the Calgary declaration.
1545
Their government denied them the opportunity of working with
Canadians to build a better Canada. Quebeckers must have a voice.
They must be part of this popular initiative, working equally with
Canadians in a positive, creative and constructive effort to build
a new Canada that they will be an integral part of.
Quebeckers know all too well the outcome of the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords. Both failed miserably because of a secret
process. Quebeckers and other Canadians were not really consulted.
The two accords were produced by the great decision makers, without
real consultation or prior agreement.
[English]
We have therefore called on the federal government to take
responsibility for what the separatist government has refused to
do, namely to involve Quebeckers in the Calgary process. But
nine weeks have passed since the Calgary declaration and still
the federal government has done nothing to seek input from
Quebeckers on the process. How much longer must we wait? Most
other provinces have begun to complete their consultations, yet
Quebeckers have been locked out and not told honestly what the
declaration says to them.
[Translation]
As for us in the Reform Party, we cannot be satisfied with the
Liberal government's inertia. We will therefore take the
initiative in Quebec to show Quebeckers that, despite the
stereotypes of the Reform Party perpetuated by the Quebec elite, we
believe passionately in a Canada that includes Quebec. We believe
in a strong and flexible Confederation comprising ten provinces and
in which all Canadians can achieve their goals.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was very interested to hear the member's comments. There are
many items that we could discuss, but I want to raise with him
the specific issue about the proposal to convert cash transfers
to tax points.
The member will well know that under the former system of CAP,
cash transfers were made for health, post-secondary education and
welfare. He will also know that the cash was running out in a
couple of these areas which would mean that the government would
have absolutely no recourse in terms of enforcing any national
standards that may be in place. As a result the government
converted the former CAP program to the CHST, the Canada health
and social transfer, so that there is sufficient cash in the
umbrella of the full transfer so that our standards for instance
under the five principles of the National Health Act can be
enforced as well as other standards with regard to welfare.
The fact is that the cash element of the transfers between cash
and tax points is critical to the national governance, to the
federal government's ability to enforce national standards. I
wonder if the member would care to explain to the House what
mechanism the federal government has available to it to enforce
national standards when provinces like Alberta decide to
privatize health care.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of a large
part of my speech and the platform of the Reform Party with
respect to reforming the federation is that we are talking about
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In their wisdom the
Fathers of Confederation assigned certain areas, such as health
care, education and welfare as areas best managed by those
governments closest to the people. It is called the principle of
subsidiarity and it makes a lot of sense.
That is precisely why we propose providing the provinces the
flexibility they need to deliver those programs in a way that
suits their citizens and not the bureaucrats and politicians here
in far distant Ottawa.
1550
The conversion of cash transfers to tax points qualified by
national standards agreed upon co-operatively by the provinces
would ensure a national network of social programs administered
by the provinces but for all Canadians. Let us trust people
locally. It does not take bureaucrats and politicians in this
town to deliver programs. The provinces can do it for their own
citizens very well thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first, on behalf of my colleagues who are present, I would like to
congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast on the quality of his
French. We are always grateful in hearing our Reform colleagues
speaking French for their open-mindedness in doing so, and we will
say this as often as need be.
However, this does not preclude our disagreeing fundamentally
with the Reform Party's view of the future of Canada and the future
of Quebec within it.
I have two questions for the member for Calgary Southeast.
The first is fairly simple. Does the Reform Party agree with the
content of the Calgary declaration?
Second, does the party the member represents in the House wish the
declaration changed to include reference to the Senate and Senate
reform?
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for those two very thoughtful questions. I know my French is far
from perfect but I promise to continue working on it. I think we
all have an obligation to do that as a symbol of our mutual
affection for this country.
To the first question, the Reform Party does not formally have a
position on the content of the Calgary declaration because we
only take positions formally as a party in our assemblies. Our
next one will not be held until next June. In the meantime, our
leader and our unity critics have commented positively on aspects
of the Calgary declaration emphasizing their support for the
process of consultation launched therein. In my speech I
personally spoke in favour of all of the elements outlined in the
Calgary declaration.
Do we want to see it amended to include institutional reform? I
would like to see some inclusion in the Calgary declaration at
least a recognition of the need to reform federal institutions to
make them more reflective of the new reality of democracy in
Canada, the emerging west and the shift in population. However,
it is a very tricky balance because as we know the Calgary
declaration is not a constitutional vehicle and some would argue
that measures like Senate reform do require multilateral
agreement on an amendment to the Constitution.
At the very least there ought to be a parallel track of Senate
reform, reform with respect to other federal institutions
parallel to the Calgary declaration. However, if we can find a
way to include it in the declaration so that all Canadians feel
that their legitimate aspirations are being represented, I would
find that very satisfactory.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have two more
questions. We have a very short time so I would ask that you
keep the comments very brief.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for
Calgary Southeast for delivering most of his speech in French. He did
it, I believe, because our friends in the Bloc Quebecois do not know
there are francophones outside Quebec. I have a short question for the
member for Calgary Southeast.
[English]
The member suggested that he had an interest in certainly
upholding the notion of the principle of equality.
I am interested in hearing his definition of equality. Does he
refer to equality as equal treatment, equal powers, equal
opportunities for each of the provinces?
1555
Because we have very little time, perhaps I could throw into
that other question the question of consultation. If the tables
were reversed and Alberta for instance had this kind of
difficulty, would the member support the federal government
getting involved directly with the people of Alberta on an issue
that may not necessarily meet with the accord of its provincial
government?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I
dwelt at some length in my remarks on what we would consider
the equality of provinces. It would be a constitutional
framework wherein any powers available to one province would be
available to all provinces. We recognize that in the founding of
the country this was not necessarily the case. However we
believe that in a modern confederation it is appropriate that any
new powers made available to one province be made available to
them all and that no province be given any special status or
rights, or for that matter obligations in the constitution.
With respect to the second question, it is a hypothetical
question which is really not relevant. Albertans are federalists.
They believe strongly in Canada. Even though they have sometimes
been slapped around by Ottawa, and at times have been treated in
a not very pleasant way, Albertans have remained loyal to this
country, fortunately. I believe they will continue to remain
loyal. The provincial government in Alberta has been committed to
the consultation process. I cannot imagine the circumstance.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too want
to congratulate my colleague for speaking French so well, but I would
like to remind him that words do not matter any longer, we want action
now.
For the past 30, 40 years I have heard fine words: equality,
independence, fraternity. That is not what we want. That is just fine
for Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Ontario, Vancouver, etc. But
that is not what we in Quebec want. We want to be recognized as a
people.
We do not want unique society status. We do not want distinct
society status. That is not what we want. I am asking my colleague, who
is very open-minded, if he is able to recognize us simply as a people,
as a founding nation and as a modern people.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we believe that a modern
constitution of a modern, liberal, pluralistic democracy does not
have a place for ethnic divisions or divisions predicated on
nationality, bloodlines or creed. We believe that our
Constitution ought to be colour blind, it ought to be blind with
respect to race and ethnicity and it ought to incorporate all
Canadians within the framework of the provinces.
My response to the member, and I will close with this, is we are
suggesting that provinces should have jurisdiction over matters
of culture and language so that the francophone majority in
Quebec can protect those institutions which are so important to
it. We are allies of reasonable Quebec nationalists on that
point. I wish the member would open his ears to that.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to split my time with the member for Simcoe North,
the parliamentary secretary to the minister.
[Translation]
Regarding the member for Edmonton—Strathcona's motion, I would
like to make three points. First, the failure of Meech Lake has
left bad scars in Quebec.
The second point is that all surveys show that, if asked a clear
question, a vast majority of Quebeckers will answer they want to stay in
Canada.
The third point is that in spite of all the tricks and mirages used
in conjuring up an imaginary partnership as a viable option for Quebec,
in spite of all these tricks and the vague questions in two referendums,
the majority of Quebeckers chose to stay in Canada.
To this we must add another reality. The majority of Canadians
outside Quebec definitely want Quebec to remain a vibrant, active and
very significant part of Canada.
1600
Outside this majority of people across Canada, and certainly in
Quebec, who, provided the option and the question are clear, hope that
Canada's destiny will include Quebec, and that Quebec's destiny and that
of the rest of the country will complement and strengthen each other,
there are two small dissenting groups.
One is the Quebec independentists who want their province to
separate at all costs. Regardless of what we could offer, say or do,
these people will never accept the idea of a Canadian federation. With
them, it is like talking to the deaf. Whatever we say or do, they will
never accept it, because they want Quebec to separate from Canada.
We have to face this reality and accept it, because it is the option
proposed by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec and by the Bloc Quebecois
here.
Similarly, there is another small minority in Canada that will
never accept any concession to Quebec and oppose any reasonable and fair
arrangement making it possible to include Quebec in the Canadian
Constitution.
But there is also a vast majority of Canadians, including
Quebeckers, who would like to find a fair, reasonable and deliberately
made arrangement that would get Quebec to join the Constitution of 1982.
In light of this, I think the Reform Party's motion—given its wording
and its sober and conciliatory tone—represents a step in the right
direction. It is positive and proactive.
However, we would have to be very careful in asking Quebec to
urgently hold consultations on the Calgary declaration. It is too soon
yet to hold such consultations in Quebec. Let us not forget past
failures. We must avoid making the mistakes that were made during Meech
and Charlottetown.
The process has only just begun. We must first create a synergy in
the rest of Canada and have the provinces, other than Quebec, fully
endorse the Calgary declaration, after consulting with their citizens.
Then they will be able to tell Quebec “We are now unanimously prepared
to accept your fair and clear claims”.
[English]
I think we should use the utmost caution and whatever time is
necessary before we consult with Quebeckers. We must prepare
ourselves properly to make sure that we do not repeat Meech Lake
and Charlottetown.
I happen to agree fundamentally with the member for Winnipeg
Transcona regarding the essential inclusion of our First Nations
so that early in the negotiations they should feel they are a
real part of the process.
Indeed and ironically, there is a striking correlation between
the feeling of First Nations and the feeling of many Quebeckers
which I share. Just as we tend to ignore our First Nations, in
the processes that have taken place before, maybe not enough time
and patience was given to listen to the fair demands of Quebec to
join the constitution.
[Translation]
Beyond the written documents, the spoken words and the
constitutional provisions, there is above all the attitude, the
friendliness and the openness to what the other person is saying. There
is also the deliberate and genuine desire to show that the other party is
not only accepted but welcome as a wanted and needed partner.
If Meech and its aftermath left some scars in Quebec, and it is
undeniable, it was not because of the texts and not because of
constitutional provisions, which were quite reasonable in my opinion; it
was because many Quebeckers were left with the feeling that the rest of
Canada had closed the door in their faces.
1605
Therefore, the resolution before us must be construed as the will
to go forward. It is a positive, proactive measure which goes beyond
partisanship. I see it as a positive gesture on the part of a Reform
member who, through his attitude, his behaviour and his determination,
stepped away from the traditional, rigid position of the Reform Party on
these issues. That party is the same one that generated some negative
publicity for Quebec's political leaders during the federal election
campaign, that voted collectively against distinct society in this House
and that would very much like to abolish the Official Languages Act.
At the same time, I think that the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Edmonton—Strathcona must be seen as a step in the right
direction; it is a positive and proactive resolution that I will
support. Therefore, I thank the member for putting it forward.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I praise the
openmindedness of my colleague who was elected to the Quebec National
Assembly and who saw the Meech Lake accord die. We were not able to have
the Meech Lake accord agreed to, with five very acceptable conditions
that were even more reasonable than what could have been expected from
Quebec. Quebeckers wanted much more because they want a country.
But even then there was, I would say, a small window of
opportunity, and you know how it was rejected. It truly hurts. I do not
know what to call this when we see the people who came to tell
Quebeckers they love them just before the referendum and when we know
that these are the same people who rejected the Meech Lake accord. It is
nothing but a joke.
My very experienced colleague says everything would be all right if
only we could be recognized. But even the Meech Lake accord, as I said
earlier, was not acceptable to Quebeckers. So how can they accept this
unique society concept today, in 1997?
I would like my colleague to explain to me how Quebeckers could
accept this unique society concept when nobody can say what it means. We
first had the distinct society concept, and it means more to me than the
word unique because we know everybody is unique. In my opinion, this
unique society concept does not mean a thing. I would like my colleague
to explain to me how he could convince my colleagues and my constituents
in Matapédia—Matane to accept this concept.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I think one has a choice between
two positions. One can think that things are set in stone, that they can
never change. I personally voted in favour of the Meech Lake accord.
Ironically, the Parti Quebecois voted against it. And today they
complain about the failure of the Meech Lake accord, but it is those
same people from the Parti Quebecois, the independentists, who were
opposed to the Meech Lake accord, every bit as much as Mr. Wells and all
those who voted against it.
1610
So, it is a fact that we need to acknowledge, and one cannot say
that Meech was rejected by all Canadians. The premier and the people of
Ontario vigorously supported Meech, as well as the people of British
Columbia and Alberta. At the end of the day, only one province was
responsible for Meech going under.
Many Canadians considered Meech a positive initiative, but we
failed. There are two ways to react to this failure: since we failed,
should we close the book? Should we say that Canada cannot go on,
because the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown agreements failed?
Of course not. We have to work harder and realize that shifts in
position are possible, even in the Reform Party, since one of its
members has brought forward today a resolution that might not have been
accepted before by his party, which is now taking a new position. Like
some of his colleagues have come to realize, we need to take new
positions. We have to try to find out what brings us together instead of
always looking for what drives us apart and could divide us forever.
Here, today, we have a new openness. We hope that the Calgary
declaration can bring us together so that we can explain what the unique
character of Quebec means and accept it for what it really means so that
Quebec can feel welcome within our Constitution. Maybe we can find the
kind of openness that has eluded us up until now.
This is why we need to work as hard as we can to encourage such
positions.
I hope that the Bloc Quebecois will see this as a sign of openness,
unless the Bloc members maintain that it is impossible for us to work
together. I for one believe that we can work together.
[English]
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure today that I join in this debate on the motion proposed
by the Reform Party. I appreciate the non-partisan spirit in
which this motion has been put forward. Certainly I encourage
all federalist members of the House to support the motion.
I believe the Calgary declaration goes in the right direction.
It is a provincial initiative which nine premiers and two
territorial leaders have set out. It is a declaration of
principles which I think all Canadians who are interested in the
country thriving, growing and remaining united should be prepared
to support.
[Translation]
There are two major principles in the Calgary declaration that I
would like to mention: the first one is the recognition of Quebec's
specificity, and the second is the equality of the provinces.
During the 1995 referendum campaign, the Prime Minister made
several commitments. Following these commitments, the House of Commons
passed a resolution on the recognition of Quebec's specificity, distinct
society. Unfortunately, the federal government cannot adopt alone
amendments to the Constitution; this requires the participation of the
provinces.
To provide for this, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
travelled to all provinces to discuss this issue with the premiers and
his counterparts in all the provinces to determine whether amendments
could be made to the Constitution so that it would include recognition
of Quebec's specificity.
We are pleased to see in the Calgary declaration that the nine
premiers and the two territorial leaders are in the process of taking a
step forward by determining whether there can be such a recognition.
The wording is not the same. The declaration talks about the unique
character of Quebec society instead of distinct society, but it is
nevertheless the specificity of Quebec that is being described.
1615
As for the equality of the provinces, we have always argued that it
is possible to recognize the specificity of Quebec while respecting the
equality of the provinces. Equality does not mean sameness. I have three
children and I always try to treat them equally, but not always in the
same way. They all have their own needs and at times I treat them
differently.
[English]
Consultations with Canadians are not an invention of the Reform
Party. I heard during the debate this morning, when the debate
was slipping a bit from its non-partisan nature or intention on
behalf of some of the parties, that the grassroots movement was
something the Reform Party was promoting.
At the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I
have been travelling through practically every province in Canada
since my appointment as his parliamentary secretary. I have been
meeting with Canadians in all regions of the country at the
grassroots level. These Canadians organized themselves into
unity groups to try to become engaged in the debate on the future
of Canada. A lot of them reached that point by being frustrated
with the constitutional wrangling that had been going on up until
the Charlottetown accord failed.
These groups of Canadians, grassroots organizations, were very
supportive of the fact that their Canada contains a province that
is different by reason of its majority language, its institutions
and its culture. They are very willing to support and recognize
that, so long as it is very clear the recognition does not result
in any special rights, powers or privileges granted to any
province. In other words, the equality of provinces is
respected.
This is essentially what the Calgary accord is speaking about. I
am confident from my travels and reports that I have made to the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that there is broad support
in all regions of the country for recognition of Quebec's
differences so long as the equality of provinces is respected.
That is not very different from what exists already. I make
reference to a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Canada, Mr. Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said at the present
time, prior to any constitutional amendments for the recognition
of Quebec, that Quebec's difference is already taken into account
by the Supreme Court of Canada when it is interpreting grey areas
of the constitution. A whole list of things are taken into
account, but the difference of Quebec by reason of its language,
culture and institutions is taken into account at the present
time.
What is now a constitutional convention, if there is willingness
among the provinces and the federal government, could be made a
constitutional provision which we hope would give assurances to
people in Quebec concerned about their language and culture that
within the Canadian federation there is a place for that
recognition and that the other provinces in the Canadian
federation are prepared to support them in the maintenance of
that position.
1620
[Translation]
Today's motion also requires that the Government of Canada go to
Quebec to consult Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration. This is an
issue on which the Prime Minister has already spoken and he has said
that there is a possibility for such consultations.
I would like to point out also that there are some 30 federal
members from Quebec in this House already working on this, returning to
their ridings every weekend, and every week when the House is not
sitting, and discussing with Quebeckers the Calgary declaration and all
other issues that concern Canada and the Constitution.
[English]
I hope all members of the House will be able to rise above
partisan politics and find a way to support the motion.
[Translation]
I can understand that the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion,
but I ask all members in this House who are federalists to support this
motion.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I think you would find all-party
consent for two motions. If I could present them now, I would be
grateful. The first motion concerns the business of the House
for tomorrow.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) moved:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, at the time of
adjournment on Wednesday, November 26, 1997, there shall be no
proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, but, at that time, a
motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been proposed and the
said motion shall be debatable, that during the said debate no
member except for the first spokesperson for each party, the
Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for
more than ten minutes, with a five minute question and comment
period, and that during the said debate no dilatory motion or
quorum call shall be received, and that, when no Member rises to
speak, the motion shall be deemed to have been adopted.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
1625
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES, SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS AND LIBRARY OF
PARLIAMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my understanding that my second motion has all-party agreement. I
move:
That the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official
Languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on
the Scrutiny of Regulations and the first report of the Standing
Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the
parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent of the House to
move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
OPPOSITION DAY—THE CALGARY DECLARATION
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming the question and
comment period with the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary defend two of the
principles in the Calgary declaration.
I cannot help thinking that many Quebeckers have already noticed
that the notion of distinct society has lost its value after being
ruled out through the rejection of the Meech Lake accord by
Canadian public opinion, contrary to the claim of the member for
Lac-Saint-Louis, who wanted to assign blame for the rejection of
the accord to a number of individuals and institutions.
The notion was also rejected by Quebeckers and Canadians in
their refusal to permit the government to amend the Constitution
according to the provisions of the Charlottetown accord.
The notion of distinct society is therefore of little interest
now, and it is to be replaced with a notion even less interesting
in terms of its content and scope, because it will not be included
in the Constitution and given interpretive effect.
I really doubt therefore that Quebeckers will accept this
notion of unique character, especially since it is not accompanied
by a reform in the distribution of powers as Quebeckers wanted.
Recognizing Quebec only symbolically as a distinct society or a
society with a unique character will never satisfy the longstanding
claim.
1630
I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary whether, in
his opinion, it is not necessary now to propose a major reform of
the distribution of powers for constitutional reform to satisfy
Quebeckers.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that as soon
as the Liberal government took office in 1993, it started working to
renew the federation. There are many examples in the area of manpower
and a number of other social programs where we have worked to renew the
federation to meet the needs not only of the Province of Quebec but also
of the other provinces that felt that federal and provincial areas of
responsibility had to be reviewed.
In today's debate, there were some members, even on this side, who
criticized the government because it has gone too far. They feel that
there has already been enough decentralization in this federation, but
I am sure we will be continuing our efforts, because it is always
possible to reach an understanding.
There will be another premiers conference in December which will deal
with the issue of youth employment and other important issues for the
provinces and the federal government.
I agree with the member that efforts have to be made to ensure that
the Constitution and the sharing of responsibilities will meet the needs
of all the regions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised
tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert, International trade; the hon. member for Fundy—Royal,
Search and Rescue Operations; the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton,
Privacy.
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead.
The importance of today's motion on national unity is like no
other. As this country approaches the beginning of a new
millennium, we are increasingly being faced with growing concerns
of global proportions, and now more than ever Canada is being
asked to play a leadership role in many international
organizations and treaties.
From our peacekeeping missions to banning land mines, Canadians
have often been hailed for showing leadership. Just yesterday in
the House we showed how this country can work together when we
dealt with the land mines issue. There was unity within this
House.
All these great accomplishments will lose their significance if
we are unable to keep this country united. The world has often
looked to Canadians for help in restoring peace to troubled
nations. But we will be risking this international profile if we
cannot manage to put an end to divisive thinking and begin
reshaping our federation with one goal in mind, national unity
from coast to coast to coast.
Since the signing of Confederation the dynamics of our
federation have been tried and tested many times. Our system of
federalism has served us well over the last 100 years. However,
dynamics change over time and, like the old family car that has
safely carried us on many long cross-Canada trips, an overhaul is
needed. Keep in mind that the body of this old car is classic
and irreplaceable. We have been emotionally attached to it but it
is unable in its present condition to get us where we need to go.
Long overdue is the time for tune-ups. In fact, we know we were
wrong to not fine tune the old jalopy on a regular basis and now
we are faced with two choices. We can put it out to pasture and
watch it rust or we can rebuild the framework, overhaul the
system to get it running smoother and better than ever.
Last September nine provincial premiers and two territorial
leaders started rebuilding the framework of that irreplaceable
classic. The work of the provincial premiers is a good first step
toward real progress on national unity.
Meech Lake and Charlottetown rejected equality of citizens and
provinces and did not solicit the genuine input of grassroots
Canadians.
1635
The Calgary declaration, on the other hand, puts the equality of
citizens and provinces and the need to engage Canadians in
national dialogue front and centre. The Calgary declaration is
not carved in stone but rather is open to changes that may emerge
from extensive consultation.
In the past the differences between the provinces and the people
have been magnified and we have forgotten some very crucial
similarities. For example, regardless of culture and language we
all want the best for our children. We all want them to grow up
in a country free of political division.
It is a shame that the separatists in Quebec are trying to keep
Quebeckers from participating in this meaningful consultation
process. This is a great disservice to our fellow Canadians in
Quebec. Their input is vital to the process and we want to hear
what Quebeckers have to say as we begin this renewal of
federalism.
Obvious is the reason the separatist Government of Quebec has
chosen not to participate. Any constructive means to solve our
unity disputes would douse the fire of separatism, leaving the
separatists without a mandate.
Now is the time for Canadians to reach out to one another and
embrace our diversity. Unique, yes. Distinct, yes. Equal, yes.
We have always accepted that Quebec is unique. However, we
believe that all provinces are unique in their own right. We
favour a rebalancing of federal-provincial powers to ensure that
each province is allowed to nourish its distinctiveness while the
federal government's powers are strengthened in the areas of
national concern.
In the past politicians have shortchanged Quebeckers with one
word phrases in an attempt to appease their dissatisfaction with
the federation. Why not give them the tools they require to
strengthen their culture? The only stipulation we request is
that those same tools be made available to all provinces to use
in areas that matter most to them.
Let me emphasize that granting provinces more control over the
development of their distinctiveness and the concept of equality
are not on opposite ends of the spectrum. In the process of
rebuilding the federation, just as the old classic family car
needs an overhaul, a realignment of powers of the federal and
provincial governments is needed. Instead of focusing on purely
symbolic one word phrases which politicians time and again refuse
to accurately define, we should focus on presenting provinces
with the tools needed to develop that which makes them unique.
The concept of equality does not mean that everyone is the same.
At the risk of oversimplifying the situation let me use another
analogy. In a classroom if a teacher hands out identical boxes
of supplies to each student and tells them they are to make a
project using those supplies, it stands to reason that no two
projects will be identical. The creative processes vary from
student to student as each places different importance on how to
use the supplies based on each student's vision of what their
project will encompass.
In the federation equal does not necessitate identical. It
would be unrealistic to expect the provinces to exercise their
powers uniformly. Rather, the provinces will have equal powers
to try what is best suited for their traditions, their character,
their education, social services, and the list goes on, all the
while keeping in mind adherence to national standards guidelines.
Canadians need to feel free to come forward and offer solutions
and ideas on how to improve the federation and how their province
should diversify and nurture its distinctiveness.
It would be wise for all levels of government to view the
separatist movement in Quebec as a wake-up call to improve our
federal system. In the spirit of co-operation that was
demonstrated in the Calgary declaration, respecting differences
and allowing provinces more power to develop their unique
societies will foster unity in this country.
Earlier today a member of the Bloc stated that western Canada
could not handle Quebec's distinctiveness. I encourage the
member of the Bloc to listen to what we are saying. We are well
aware that the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois are determined to
undermine any national unity plan because that would put an end
to their singularly divisive political agenda. I encourage that
member of the Bloc to visit our province. He will be pleasantly
surprised to find out that we embrace our differences. Perhaps
he might like to visit some of our francophone communities.
In my constituency of Lethbridge our school system has a very strong
French immersion program. It began in 1975 and continues to teach
children the beauty of distinctiveness, distinctive culture and
the value of learning new languages, including French.
I recently received a letter from the mayor of Lethbridge
regarding a set of resolutions formed by the city council of
Lethbridge on the issue of the possibility of Quebec's seceding
from the federation. The Lethbridge municipal council has taken
an interest in this issue because its sister city is
Saint-Laurent, Quebec.
1640
The positive relationship between Lethbridge and Saint Laurent has
steadily grown over the years, highlighted by youth, cultural and
linguistic exchange programs. As we face the possibility of yet
another referendum it is now more significant than ever to reach
out to our respective sister cities and remind our fellow
Canadians how much we cherish their friendships and the
friendships that have developed from these exchanges.
With most of this discussion of separatism focusing on our
differences it is imperative that we regain perspective and
remember how much we share in common.
The responsibility of conveying this commonality must also be
shared by federal, provincial and municipal representatives as
well as with individual Canadians who wish to help keep this
great country united.
I commend the city council of Lethbridge for presenting such
positive resolutions and for acting to help its fellow Canadians
in Quebec who wish only for improvements to the federation and
not for separation.
In a recent poll in my constituency over 80% of respondents
believe that making federal institutions more accountable is the
best route to solving Canadian national unity problems. Nearly
two-thirds who responded agreed that realigning more powers to
the provinces, precisely what Quebec has long asked for, is the
key to keeping this country together.
I feel strongly that if we persevere to keep Canada united we
will indeed enter the 21st century with new found confidence and
prosperity.
I urge all Canadians to contact their municipal, provincial and
federal representatives and to continue communicating with our
sisters and brothers in Quebec. Let us keep our Canadian family
together once and for all.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
our colleague speak about the Calgary declaration. I would simply like
to remind him of several points. First of all, the sovereignty of
Quebec, once again, is not a problem, it is a solution. I would just
like to inform him that Quebec as such is not a province like the other
provinces and that it will never be like the other provinces. The
Province of Quebec is the cradle of this great Canada. The development
of this great Canada did not begin in the west and move east, but began
in the east and moved west.
The hon. member says that we are all people who are identical and
the same, but there are differences.
I would like to point out to him that the difference is greater between
Quebeckers and anglophones in other provinces than between anglophones
in Canada and Americans. Therefore if, according to him, we are all the
same and we should all be in the same boat and be identical, I would
like him to tell us whether he would prefer that Canada simply join the
United States. Why would he not agree that Canada should simply join the
United States? Because Canadians are different from Americans, because
Canadians want to keep their culture.
If he considers it is good that Canada does not join the United
States, why not allow what would be a good thing for us, Quebeckers,
that is to be who we are and what we want to become?
[English]
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I think that is what we are trying to get across here. It is
that we are not all the same. Every province has its own
uniqueness. We are saying that we would like to give the
provinces the powers to develop those differences and that
uniqueness while staying in Canada.
As the hon. member said, I certainly would not support any move
for Canada to join the United States. That is a poor analogy.
We are saying that we are different. Let us give the provinces
the power and ability to enhance those differences while staying
in Canada.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with intent to the member's speech. I thought he gave a
very good speech. Sometimes we do not have the opportunity to
praise each other in this House. Perhaps we should do that more
often.
It is interesting that of all his colleagues, he is one of the
few whom I have actually heard defend the concept of having
national standards in this country.
1645
I think that sometimes we get involved in the issue of
devolution and do not look at what is behind it. Presumably the
theory is that the closer the government is to the people, the
better the administrative services. Does the hon. member for
Lethbridge feel that programs administered out of Edmonton would
be superior to a local CEC office in Lethbridge which would deal
directly with the people?
I wonder if the hon. member could think of things which are
under provincial jurisdiction which would be better handled on a
national basis.
I visited a softwood lumber forestry operation in British
Columbia which was very close to the Alberta border. I was
surprised how every province in this country competed against
each other. The net result was that the Americans were able to
plot province against province to create a quota system. In
fact, what we should have been doing was talking with one voice
in international trade.
I wonder if the hon. member could comment on some of those
items.
Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member that
my background is in municipal politics. I came through that
route to this House. That level of government is closest to the
people. We are with them every day. We are not removed from
them.
I have always had the feeling that the government which is
closest to the people should be the government to deal with them.
The government that is most able to deliver whatever service it
is, whether it be a social service or a matter having to do with
interprovincial trade, should be the government to handle it. I
agree with the member that barriers to interprovincial trade is
another debate entirely.
There should be a strong central government in Canada to handle
national issues, such as defence. However, services should be
moved down the line into the provincial realm and even into the
municipal realm.
We have municipal councils and governments in this country which
can handle a lot of the services which are required. They know
the people, they—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the
hon. member's time has expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not slated to speak, but I would like to say a few
words about this unity issue.
I fully support the motion.
In the riding of Selkirk—Interlake, we have a very significant
number of French-speaking people. Manitoba has traditionally had
a large French-speaking population and we have always supported
national unity.
I guess there are no provisions for me to allow the alternate
speaker to speak.
I would like to take this opportunity to give the House an
example of what has gone wrong in the unity debate over the years
and get back to the idea that consultation—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. With
unanimous consent, any hon. member can yield to any other hon.
member. If the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake wishes to sit
down and yield the remainder of his time to another hon. member,
that can be arranged with unanimous consent.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for that
because I have made the point that I fully support this motion
and I will certainly share my time with my hon. colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for Selkirk—Interlake have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On debate, the hon.
member for Yellowhead.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleague from Manitoba for giving up some of his time
so that I could speak.
I am pleased to speak on the issue of this whole business of
uniting our country.
1650
I am greatly perplexed and disappointed that after 30 years of
all kinds of wrangling, this whole business has not yet been
resolved. Actually, I am not surprised that an agreement to our
national dilemma has evaded us. Hopefully this will become
evident in my comments.
After all this time, energy, money spent and lost opportunities,
where are we in our national debate? Where are we in our
national discourse on the Quebec separation issue? After all
these talks, where are the results? After three decades have our
discussions led to new goals and a new vision for our country?
Have we as Canadians developed a sense of patriotism toward our
homeland? The questions beg the answers.
Indeed, our country certainly seems to be in a quandary. For
almost two generations our country has been adrift like a
rudderless vessel on a stormy sea, tossed hither and yon by the
forces of deceit, dishonesty, deception and destruction and all
the time undergirded by the contradictions of apathy and
appeasement and all the time bringing our nation closer to the
brink of disaster where the very fibre of our country is being
stretched to the breaking point.
Through all these years what really has the fuss been all about?
What has been that elusive thing that seems to be beyond our
reach and our grasp? Has the 30-plus years of a one-sided debate
centred around the issue of equality, the equality of provinces
or the equality of citizens? Has the debate been centred on the
devolution of federal powers? Has the ongoing debate been about
the building of a new Canada? Or, has this long, drawn out
debate, unbalanced I may add, centred around the rebuilding of
Canada based on the two founding nations concept and its
ill-conceived child, a distinct society?
Is that what the debate has been about? It certainly seems to
me that that is precisely what the debate has been about for
about 30 years. Debate has been about the notion of two founding
nations, two societies based on language and culture, on French
and English, on making one language and culture in Quebec, on
making Quebec a distinct society.
It should be no surprise, based on these concepts, the concepts
of two societies and a distinct society for one of them, that the
whole notion was doomed to a dismal failure. The focus has been
misguided and the mark was missed completely.
The outcome of the two nations concept was predicted 35 years
ago by a former Alberta premier when he stated “You talk about
this two nations idea long enough and that is probably what you
will end up with”. Just look around. Some would say that is
pretty much where we are today.
The two nations concept and its manifestation, distinct society,
produced the idea that confederation was to serve the ends of two
language groups, French and English. If we follow that kind of
reasoning to its logical conclusion, what do we come up with? It
would mean that Canada would not really be a federation of 10
equal provinces at all but consist instead of two societies, one
being a distinct society, Quebec, and the other nine provinces
combined to be the other society.
The spokespeople for the old line federal parties argue that to
put such a clause in the constitution would be to merely
recognize the sociological fact that Quebec is the homeland of
the French language and culture and that Quebec has its civil
code which is of course distinct from the English common law. No
one can dispute these sociological facts.
They are there for everyone to see, but that is largely
irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the debate on whether this kind
of clause ought to be in the constitution.
1655
The problem arises when describing these sociological facts,
civil code, French language and culture, denominational schools,
with a broad brush definition like distinct society and to put
these words in the constitution.
This is the nub of it. If we put Quebec as a distinct society
in the constitution, we are then asking the courts to give those
words meaning. There is no constitutional basis or
constitutional history to give support and credibility to the
concepts of two founding nations and distinct society. No
Fathers of Confederation, not even the French speaking Fathers of
Confederation, said anything of two nations and distinct society.
They talked very little of language as well.
There is no ringing declaration in the BNA Act that Canada wants
to be a bilingual and bicultural country. Nothing in the
Constitution of 1867 suggests bilingualism or biculturalism.
There is one important section in that act on language. It is
section 133 which states that English and French may be spoken in
the House of Commons and in the courts established by the
Government of Canada, in other words the Supreme Court and the
federal courts, and that the two languages may be used in the
National Assembly in Quebec. Subsequent language and cultural
laws came much later under the hand of Mr. Trudeau, with little
constitutional basis for it until provided for in the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms in 1982.
Entrenching distinct society in the constitution for Quebec
would encourage provincial governments and that province to carve
out more jurisdictional areas unavailable to other provinces. For
example, Quebec could establish its own radio and television
commission.
The great constitutional expert Eugene Forsey wrote that Quebec
could assume powers in banking, copyright, patents, railways,
citizenship, criminal law, foreign affairs, plus others possibly,
if the distinct society clause would be entrenched in the
constitution. Legislation will be passed and when challenged by
the courts, Quebec will argue “This is a necessary ingredient
for us. We must have that because we are a distinct society”.
Quebec marches onwards toward separation a phenomena dubbed as
incremental separatism.
There is a much better resolution to this issue of unity. It
will ensure that legitimate constitutional aspirations of Quebec
are met.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Your time has
expired.
The hon. member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in looking at the motion and listening to the member, I think it
is clear that the debate which has gone on, particularly by
Reform members, has shown their true lack of understanding of
Quebec and Canada.
The member well knows that one of the principle features of
Canada is our mobility rights which allows all Canadians to
travel throughout this wonderful country, to each and every
province, and to enjoy all of the things Canada has to offer.
This member has defined Canada as a bunch of parts.
I would ask the member whether or not he believes the federal
government should have control over the enforcement of national
standards to do with our Canada health care system.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, we have gone from
talking about the whole unity issue to the national health
standards issue. I really do not know what connection that
really has with the whole business of talking about national
unity.
We support a standardized health care system across the country.
We support the Canada National Health Act.
1700
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers
listening to what the Reformers are saying today can rest assured that
this gives us further arguments in favour of sovereignty.
As the hon. member's colleague indicated earlier, distinct
society does not mean anything to them. I am pleased to hear
that. It does not mean anything, it is meaningless. I agree. They
have stated in this House—and they took the entire day to say
so—that it is meaningless. I must thank my colleagues from the
Reform Party. They are giving the riding of Matapédia—Matane one
more reason to be in favour of sovereignty.
I have a question for the hon. member. In our region, 64% voted in
favour of sovereignty. What does he have to say to these people who
sincerely wish for Quebec to become sovereign?
What does he have to say to them today?
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where
there were 64% who voted in favour of sovereignty. He also made
the statement that we do not put meaning to the whole business of
distinct society. Obviously the member has not been listening.
We have put a lot of meaning into the whole notion of distinct
society and that is why we do not like to see it entrenched in
the Quebec constitution.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I must
comment on what the hon. member said about distinct society because the
concept of distinct society was diluted to such an extent in both the
Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords that it was clear, very clear in
fact—and that is what ministers and anyone who supported the Meech
Lake accord at the time said—that this would not give Quebec any more
power. This is one of the many reasons that led Quebeckers to vote
against the Charlottetown accord.
If today we use a different terminology to describe a notion like
the unique character of Quebec, the result will be the same, that is to
say that Quebeckers will not accept any such proposals because they do
not mean anything, they are just empty words that do not give Quebec any
real power, when that is what Quebeckers want.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate
the notion the member has put forward. I would agree that the
leaders of the day at the Charlottetown and the Meech Lake
accords had a tendency to say one thing in one part of the
country and another thing in another part of the country. Of
course, that is dishonest and deceptive and it is not the way to
bring about a unified country.
We have put a lot of meaning into the whole term distinct
society.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just to
reiterate, on this side of the House we understand
distinctiveness not only in Quebec but throughout our country.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, the member for
Mississauga South, although there may not be time.
Only two weeks ago I was at the commemoration of the first time
we issued a historical plaque outside of this country at Vimy
Ridge. I was taken aback by the ceremony and going through some
of the trenches and seeing some of the carvings on the walls that
had been done by people who had been shot or killed at Vimy. I
realized that both French and English had fought together in that
war.
1705
Nobody asked them when they showed up to free France from the
invaders whether they were French or English, whether they were
Quebeckers or Ontarians, whether they came from the west. They
fought together as a nation of Canadians, and very successfully.
Over 3,900 Canadians, if I recall correctly, of all backgrounds
lost their lives there. These are some of the histories that we
have shared together as a country.
It is with that view in mind that I rise today to speak in
favour of not only the Calgary declaration but the motion that
has been moved by my hon. colleagues opposite.
We have discussed a variety of issues today and there is this
constant issue of decentralization versus centralization. I
sometimes do not think that we have given proper address to how
our world is significantly changing.
Often the debate is very sterilized because it talks about
taking power away from some kind of central authority. I would
like to indicate that over the last 10 years Canada has entered
into a number of international treaties such as NAFTA, GATT and
some of the other treaties that we are now discussing and will be
discussing in this House such as the multilateral agreement on
investment.
All these treaties, if you will, have resulted in the delegation
to a certain degree of authority from the so-called central
government to international bodies, often dispute settlement
mechanisms.
What I am trying to get at is that we have actually already
given up a certain degree of power at the federal level to
international institutions to effect more global trade. This is
the reality of the world.
If we sit at the other end and constantly try to take power away
from this institution that has already given up power
internationally, we can understand how we are slowly but surely
weakening our system of government and weakening the ties that
bind us together.
I was heartened today by the Reform Party's talking about
national standards because I very rarely hear it talk about
those. I hear it defending provincial rights. Once again, I
sometimes do not think we have given enough thought to how our
country has changed.
I sometimes wonder if we should be debating provincial
versus federal rights or talking more about urban versus rural
rights. When we talk about the delivery of services on a local
basis, of course large municipalities have the ability to do
that.
We have just seen in my own province the amalgamation of the
city of Toronto. Whether people like it or not it seems that is a
very huge governmental authority that could probably deal
effectively with a lot of local issues.
On the other hand, there are communities within our country that
have a great deal of difficulty making even the basic services
available to their people just because they are few in number or
they are spread out over a wide geographical area.
I have often wondered if we should not restructure some of this
debate about dealing with how to deliver services directly to the
people who require them.
I support the initiative of the Calgary declaration. I think we
very much have to continue the dialogue, but I think also we have
to start talking about how to build this country. We have to
stop talking about how to tear it apart. We have to start
talking about how to build a stronger nation as we move toward
the 21st century.
We have institutions of government. I have come to believe that
there is a role for some kind of reformed Senate. I suspect it
has some of the parameters that some of the members are talking
about today, guaranteeing some kind of minimum standards and
ensuring that our medical system, for instance, in British
Columbia is not significantly different in a minimum kind of way
from those in other parts of the country.
I have been appalled in some ways to find that people who have a
cardiac or a diagnosis cardiac operation in British Columbia have
to wait three weeks for an operation, while those in Manitoba
only half a week.
Therefore when we talk about things in the Calgary declaration
such as equality of people, I sometimes wonder whether we are
really addressing those issues and whether, if we are really
concerned about the equality of people, we should find ways to
ensure there are minimum standards across this country we can all
agree to as a nation.
1710
Most people who have studied national unity would say that the
things that unite us as a nation are the ways we treat each
other. Most people would say one of those things is the health
care system. Another is education. Heaven forbid, it says here
that belongs to the provinces, but most people would say we
should have some kind of minimum standard on which we can all
agree that people can move around this country without needing an
entry test to discover whether they are in grade two or grade
twelve or whatever grade. We should all have some standards
recognized which can unite us as a nation.
As my hon. colleague from Mississauga South would like a few
words, I will conclude. I am definitely in support of the
Calgary declaration initiative and of the motion before us today.
More important, we have to find ways to reinvent our country. We
happen to think that devolution is the way to do it. There may
well be cases where we should be giving power back to the central
government in order to create national binding standards in our
country.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker of the House is
about to arrive to give his decision on a fairly significant
point of order. Could I get agreement from this House that we
have an opportunity to respond to this and not be excluded
from that opportunity by virtue of bells?
Some hon. members: No.
MAIN ESTIMATES—SPEAKER`S RULING
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on a
point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert on
Monday, November 24, 1997. At that time the hon. member raised a
point of order relating to the following items in the estimates:
vote 1, policy and farm programs under agriculture; vote 15,
convention refugee determination division under immigration; vote
1, health, environment and safety from environmental hazards
under environment; vote 5, lands and trust services under Indian
affairs; vote 1, policy and programs and divestitures under
transport; vote 35, international trade tribunal under trade;
vote 15, supply and services under public works; vote 40, Canada
Information Office under heritage.
Supported by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, the hon.
member argued that the first five items seek to bypass the
legislative process because certain bills related thereto are now
before the House or died on the order paper in the 35th
Parliament. As to the remaining three, he claimed there was no
legislative authority at all.
This morning the hon. President of the Treasury Board returned
to the House and responded with his explanation of the eight
items complained of.
Before I go into the details of my review of this matter, might
I suggest with all respect to the hon. member, as have suggested
several Speakers before me, that points of order on estimates are
usually very serious and almost always very complex.
To leave these matters to the eve of the final decision by the
House puts the Chair in a difficult position to say the least, if
intelligent consideration is to be given to such procedural
issues. In the absence of an appropriate procedure to challenge
specific items in the House, hon. members should bring these
matters forward as soon as they are aware of difficulties.
1715
In presenting his arguments the hon. member for St. Albert made
abundant reference to past rulings by Speakers Lamoureux, Jerome
and Sauvé. Over the last several hours I have refreshed my
memory and reviewed these rulings and in particular Speaker
Jerome's ruling of March 22, 1977 and Speaker Sauvé's ruling of
June 12, 1981.
The rulings make it clear that the supply procedure ought not to
be used to bypass the normal or regular legislative process. In
other words, items in the estimates must not attempt to amend
existing statutes or be used to obtain authority which normally
would be sought through proper legislation.
In order to better understand what on these occasions was the
basis on which certain provisions of the estimates were
challenged, let me quote two examples of the exact wording used
in the estimates as tabled in the House.
The first example relates to industry, trade and commerce, vote
77d of the supplementary estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1977, as referred to in Speaker Jerome's ruling of
March 22, 1977. The description of the vote was as follows:
(a) To increase from $750,000,000 to $2,500,000,000 the amount
set out in Section 26 of the Export Development Act; and
(b) To increase from $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 the amount set
out in Section 28 of the Export Development Act.
The second example concerns energy, mines and resources, vote 45
of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982,
as referred to in Speaker Sauvé's ruling of June 12, 1981. Again
the description of the vote was as follows:
Vote 45—Canada Oil Substitution Program—Payments, in
accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council and
payments pursuant to agreements with a province or a person in
respect of—
It was based on the wordings as they appeared in the estimates
that both examples were ruled out of order.
Having gone back to the basis for the rulings referred to by the
hon. member for St. Albert, I then examined the wording used to
describe the eight votes which he challenged in his point of
order.
In the first five votes grouped by the hon. member, that is,
vote 1, agriculture; vote 15, immigration; vote 1, environment;
vote 5, Indian affairs; and vote 1, transport, nowhere could I
find in the wordings an attempt to bypass the legislative process
by seeking approval for funds which have not yet received
legislative authority. I therefore cannot agree with the hon.
member's conclusions.
In his second group the hon. member included vote 35, Canadian
International Trade Tribunal; vote 15, supply and services
program; and vote 40, Canada Information Office. Again in
examining the wording of these three votes, I cannot conclude
that an attempt is being made to amend legislation through the
use of an appropriation act.
I want to refer to arguments that were made yesterday and again
today that the House is being asked to grant supply before it
legislates. May I respectfully remind hon. members that when
granting funds through the adoption of an appropriation act, the
House is in fact legislating. Again let me repeat that what was
objected to in the past and what different Speakers have ruled
out of order were attempts to amend existing acts or legislate
new programs as part of a legislative measure granting supply.
This morning the hon. member for St. Albert in response to the
hon. President of the Treasury Board further argued that the
information provided to Parliament in the part IIIs of the
estimates requires improvement.
The hon. minister himself indeed agreed with such an objective. I
should remind the House that part III expenditure plans, if
imperfect, are a recent innovation by the government. The
content of most expenditure plans goes beyond the next fiscal
year and covers several supply cycles. That some projections
contained therein are at variance with stated past, present or
future government policies is in my view understandable. Things
change. Events affect plans. That anticipated legislation or
bills now on the Order Paper or bills outstanding at the
dissolution of the 35th Parliament be referred to in these
documents in no way impacts on the supply proceedings or the
legislative proceedings of the House.
1720
What is important and paramount is the accuracy of the votable
items reflected in part II of the estimates. Once concurred in,
the estimates in part II become the schedule to the supply bill
which itself becomes the appropriation act granting authority to
spend to the government. This authority must be renewed on an
annual basis. As was stated this morning by the hon. President
of the Treasury Board, the statutory items are included in the
part II for information only so that the House can get the whole
picture on spending.
[Translation]
In his reply, this morning, the President of the Treasury Board
quoted part of a paragraph in the Preface of Part II of the 1997-98
Estimates. I will quote more extensively from page 1-5 under the heading
“Changes in the 1997-98 Estimates”:
The purpose of this section is twofold. As in previous years,
it will describe changes in Vote, Program and other presentations
in order to permit the reconciliation of the 1996-97 Main Estimates
with the 1997-98 Main Estimates.
In addition, this section will detail those Votes that contain
specific authority that differs from that included in the previous
year's Main Estimates as well as new expenditure authorities
appearing for the first time. In light of the House of Commons
Speaker's rulings in 1981, the government has made a commitment
that the only legislation that will be amended through the
Estimates process, other than cases specifically authorized by
Statute, will be previous Appropriation Acts.
I used this statement, which is based on Speaker's rulings made in
1981, to review the votes to which the hon. member for St. Albert
objected. In none of them was I able to find any violation of the
principles established by my predecessors.
Consequently, the said votes are in order and the House can now
proceed with the taking of the recorded divisions.
[English]
It being 5.23 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
ALLOTTED DAY—CALGARY DECLARATION
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment.
1725
The Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1800
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, I arrived late, but I would have
voted with my party.
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Chatters
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Goldring
| Goodale
| Gouk
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 190
|
NAYS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Canuel
| Casey
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Robinson
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 71
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment carried.
1805
The next question is on the main motion, as amended.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe you would find unanimous consent to apply the results
of the vote just taken to the main motion.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 27]
(Motion, as amended, agreed to)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
several recorded divisions on motions relating to the main
estimates standing in the name of the hon. President of the
Treasury Board.
MAIN ESTIMATES
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Vote 40, in the amount of $19,440,000 under CANADIAN
HERITAGE—Canada Information Office, Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 32, 1998 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois
will vote no on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
tonight will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote no on
this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my
constituents I would cast my ballot in the negative.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 120
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be considered as
being present for the next divisions and I will be voting with my party.
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to
the following:
Vote 15 of the President of Treasury Board under Public Works
and Government Services;
Vote 1 of the President of the Treasury Board under Agriculture
and Agri-Food;
Vote 1 of the President of the Treasury under Environment;
1810
Vote 5 of the President of the Treasury Board under Indian
Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 15 of the President of the Treasury Board under Citizenship
and Immigration;
Vote 5 of the President of the Treasury Board under Transport;
Vote 1(a) of the President of the Treasury Board under
Agriculture and Agri-food;
Concurrence in Supplementary Estimates (A);
Supply bill of the President of the Treasury Board, the main
motion for second reading.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to provide my
consent, but the government whip provided me with a list of votes
today and it is not consistent with what he has just indicated.
He appears not to be following the list.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, there would be a discrepancy
if the member went to the second page, to Vote 1(a), under the
President of the Treasury Board; the concurrence in Supplementary
Estimates (A); and the supply bill under the President of the
Treasury Board.
Those items have been marked under different lettering, but upon
review it came to my attention that those votes were exactly
identical to the votes previously taken, as outlined in my
intervention.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but that is
not clear to me.
If we were to proceed down the list as provided, I would provide
my consent. I just do not understand what he is saying with
respect to these votes.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if I followed the list
exactly then we would apply the vote just taken to Vote 15 of the
President of the Treasure Board under Public Works and Government
Services; Vote 1 of the President of the Treasury Board under
Agriculture and Agri-food; Vote 1 of the President of the
Treasury Board under Environment; Vote 5 of the President of the
Treasury Board under Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
Vote 15 of the President of the Treasury Board under Citizenship
and Immigration; and Vote 5 of the President of the Treasury
Board under Transport.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I therefore declare Vote 15 under Public
Works and Government Services; Vote 1 under Agriculture and
Agri-food; Vote 1 under Environment; Vote 5 under Indian Affairs
and Northern Development, the Indian and Inuit affairs program;
Vote 15 under Citizenship and Immigration, the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada; and Vote 5 under transport carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Vote 35, in the amount of $6,962,000 under
Finance—Canadian International Trade Tribunal—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1998 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply) be
concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to proceed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1815
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I will be
voting in the affirmative, yes.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this
motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brien
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Canuel
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Duhamel
| Dumas
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fournier
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 183
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bailey
| Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Cadman
|
Casey
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Davies
| Desjarlais
| Dockrill
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lill
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mancini
| Manning
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Ritz
| Robinson
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 80
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the Motion No. 3.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 3
That Vote 15, in the amount of $455,976,000 under Public Works
and Government Services—Supply and Services Program—Program
expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1998 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply) be
concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on this motion I
will be voting nay.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this
motion.
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 143
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
| Ritz
|
Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 120
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)
moved:
Motion No. 4
That Vote 1, in the amount of $564,428,000 under Agriculture and
Agri-Food—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
That Vote 1, in the amount of $407,212,000 under
Environment—Department—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
That Vote 5, in the amount of $195,678,000 under Indian Affairs
and Northern Development—Department—Indian and Inuit Affairs
Program—Operating expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
That Vote 15, in the amount of $68,183,000 under Citizenship and
Immigration—Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada—Program
expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
That Vote 5, in the amount of $106,193,000 under
Transport—Department—Capital expenditures, in the Main
Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less the
amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 030]
(Motions Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 agreed to)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the main estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, except any vote disposed
earlier today and less the amounts voted in interim supply be
concurred in.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 030]
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the recorded division on motions relating to supplementary
estimates (A) standing in the name of the hon. President of the
Treasury Board.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Vote 40, in the amount of $19,440,000 under Canadian
Heritage—Canada Information Office—Program expenditures, in the
Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998 (less
the amount voted in Interim Supply) be concurred in.
The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on this motion I will be
voting nay.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the New
Democratic Party caucus in the House this evening will vote no on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this
motion.
[English]
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 030]
(Motion No. 1 agreed to)
1820
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you would find consent to apply the results of the vote
just taken to the following: concurrence in supplementary
estimates (A) and supply bill main motion for second reading.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that supplementary estimates (A)
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, except any vote
disposed of earlier, be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 030]
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: I declare that a bill entitled an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for financial year ending March 31, 1998, be
read the first time and printed and also read a second time.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-23, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998,
be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 030]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-23. Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Title agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Bill reported)
1825
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the Reform
Party will be voting no, except for the members for Calgary West
and Red Deer who have had to absent themselves from this vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP present
this evening will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, our party will be voting
against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
residents of York South—Weston I will be voting in favour of the
motion, voting yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
| Wilfert – 144
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Cadman
| Canuel
|
Casey
| Casson
| Charest
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Lill
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Ritz
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
Stinson
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Williams – 117
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion
for third reading.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 031]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT
The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act to amend the Telecommunications Act and
the Teleglobe Canada Reoganization and Divestiture Act, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the taking of
the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading
stage of Bill C-17.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous
consent for the members who voted on the previous motion to be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yea on
this motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will be voting yes on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting in favour of this bill.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote no on
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, our party will be voting in
favour of this motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alarie
|
Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellehumeur
|
Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Canuel
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Charest
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
|
Crête
| Cullen
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagliano
|
Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Harb
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
|
Jennings
| Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Lefebvre
| Leung
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marceau
| Marchand
| Marchi
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Ménard
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Pratt
|
Price
| Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Strahl
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver)
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 246
|
NAYS
Members
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Blaikie
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Laliberte
| Lill
| Mancini
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| Nystrom
| Proctor
|
Robinson
| Solomon
| Wasylycia - Leis – 15
|
PAIRED
Members
Baker
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Easter
| Grose
|
Laurin
| Loubier
| Mercier
| Volpe
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
1830
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.) moved that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code
(prostitution), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is deceptively
simple. It in itself is a minor technical point in the Criminal
Code, but it is my belief that the clarity and improvement it
makes can bring a significant positive result, for communities to
take back their streets, for local merchants to have their
sidewalks back again and for parents to renew their confidence in
the safety of local school yards.
My bill amends section 213 of the Criminal Code to change the
available upper penalty but more importantly the kind of process
available against a person charged with talking in a public place
about buying or selling sex. It changes the street prostitution
section.
In Canada it is a Criminal Code offence, a crime to try and sell
or buy sex, prostitution in a public place such as a street
corner, a taxi cab, a bar, a pub, or the lobby of a hotel. That
is the law. We have had the national conversation about whether
that kind of activity should be controlled by criminal sanction,
and it is a crime. It is also a crime to live off the avails of
prostitution, to be a helper or employer to benefit from the
trade, or to keep a place of prostitution. Of course involving
juveniles is a very serious crime.
However the private act of prostitution itself is not a crime. I
do not know why it is not a crime as the history of abuse,
exploitation and degradation associated with those who tend to
become sex trade workers appears to be condoned in a double
standard. However that is a completely different debate and is
beyond the scope of what I am trying to do today. I have observed
that what is helpful procedure is to more directly respond to the
street trade in prostitution.
We have a social problem in our society for if there were no
buyers there would be no sellers. That is a societal problem.
Nevertheless mitigating against exploitation is historically the
Canadian way. We must provide the legal symbols which provide the
appropriate social context for citizens to voluntarily do the
right thing while we defend the helpless and minister to them
rather than allow them to be exploited.
1835
My proposed change is important for broad societal reasons.
There is also a national problem of street prostitution across
this country that did not exist in such a pervasive manner just a
few years ago. However since the advent of the charter and also
the repeal of vagrancy laws, the legal capacity has created its
own demand. Whenever we create a loophole for the perverse, the
legal vacuum will soon be filled.
Street prostitution goes far beyond just being a local nuisance.
Wherever it takes a foothold, the surrounding communities soon
learn that the drug crowd follows, as does breaking and entering,
theft from cars and an attraction of those with criminal
histories becomes entangled in the culture of the street. These
trends develop wherever prostitution is openly traded.
Mothers do not appreciate walking their children to school over
needles and condoms along the school yard fence. Merchants should
not have to patrol their front sidewalk and doorways cleaning up
from the night trade.
However the fundamental point I observed as a probation officer
before I came to this Parliament attempting to bring social
services to bear to individuals caught up in this sad cycle is
that street prostitution itself is the wide open door for the
young to become involved. Runaway children can so easily stand on
a street corner and get involved in prostitution as a way to
support themselves on the street. The wide open door and the
legal and social tolerance of street prostitution is a major
source of the national problem, how it is fed and kept going.
My experience in attempting to help young people in conflict
with the law and those who are on the street made me acutely
aware of how the summary conviction status of communication for
prostitution was so much in conflict with all of our concern and
expenditure to help street kids and preserve the peace and safety
of our neighbourhoods.
Politicians of the Liberal government side have in the past been
very sanctimonious about juveniles and prostitution. NDP members
also talk about the awful violence against sex trade workers and
claim to be concerned about children on the street. Yet
historically they have resisted suggestions to mitigate against
allowing kids to be on the street and supporting themselves
through the sex trade.
This is not a new problem, yet today we in Parliament after
years of talk are still dithering about this matter. The justice
minister said to me just a few days ago that consultations are
still continuing and that any legislation will be “done right”.
That is the same put off and delaying answer I received from the
previous justice minister back in 1994. And the Conservatives
were no better in that there were reports and plenty of
consultation but during their tenure the whole prostitution file
was not effectively dealt with. Even worse, the NDP has appeared
to support prostitution itself through its advocacy of what it
affectionately calls street trade workers. I think the NDP would
like to unionize them.
I come from a different perspective, one that is rather
pragmatic. We may not like prostitution in society. We also may
not like the overwhelming violation of rights it might take to
eliminate most of it. Nevertheless, as parliamentarians we also
do not need to pave a golden street for the sex trade to
flourish. Therefore as an interim measure we need to pass my
bill so we can get on with the more important comprehensive
measures that the government claims it is considering and that
the justice department has been studying for years.
Prostitution is exploitive and a lot of other crime and
degradation seems to go with it, especially all of what is
commonly known about the drug trade and drug abuse. All these
tragedies are tied together, so there are practical reasons to
have the public communications section of the code made as
flexible as possible in its application.
The police are also using section 503 of the code to issue what
is called no go orders to keep repetitious, obnoxious and
aggressive prostitutes who are leading the trade and shepherding
others into the trade to be subject to geographic prohibitions of
not entering into common strolls. If the recognizance is
breached, that becomes an offence and is easier to enforce that
gathering new evidence under section 213 every time. However
these restrictions are time limited and are tied to the process
of other charges so they are of limited value.
Although section 213 is gender neutral, gathering evidence
against buyers is difficult.
Police are unlikely to assign much of their precious police time
resources to suppress a problem if the offence is only a summary
one and after the expenditure of thousands of dollars in
enforcement routines only results in a few charges and nets the
perpetrators a $100 fine which becomes just another nuisance cost
of doing the job.
1840
Flexibility rather than just a heavy-handed approach is what I
am promoting. The change would allow, if needed, to fingerprint
and photograph if some cases were proceeded with through the
optional indictment process. It would be used as needed and
would form part of a broader tool kit of resources that would
support crime prevention objectives. It would greatly enhance
breaking the cycle of lifestyle for some youths and more
effectively get them into community remedial programs.
We must have the political courage to intervene so that the
inherent discretion that lies throughout the system can flexibly
respond to the individual need.
In the 1995 interim report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial
Working Group on Prostitution, the results of national
consultations indicated several recommendations to combat
prostitution, one of them being to change section 213. The deputy
minister of justice established the working group in 1992 from
the federal, provincial and territorial governments. With regard
to the recommendation, the most important factor for change was
not to punish prostitutes but rather for identification purposes.
In many cases, prostitutes use false identification.
The Identification of Criminals Act states that fingerprints and
photographs cannot be taken when a person is charged summarily.
With fingerprints and photographs, police would be able to track
down runaways and to clear the backlog of outstanding arrest
warrants of prostitutes who have used false identities. It would
also solve some serious crimes. It would send a most necessary
and needed message to the community, to both the customers and
sellers, that such acts are not to be taken lightly and they are
not in society's interest.
The response from the working group stated that identification
of prostitutes along with the use of false identities was
considered a serious problem by law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors, one which might be solved with such amendments. The
ability to fingerprint and photograph would make it easier to
identify and prosecute repeat offenders.
Something most people are not aware of is the fact that many
street prostitutes are runaways living under false names and
identities. They become involved and perhaps trapped in a
dangerous subculture. Parents of these children desperately want
to find a way of tracing their child's whereabouts but because of
false identities little can be done. They desperately want to
find a way to bring their children home.
The research that has been done on street prostitution suggests
that decisions to enter into the prostitution trade are decided
in the time of youth. In fact in 1984 the Badgley Committee on
Sexual Offences Against Children and Youth found that of all the
prostitutes interviewed, 93% of females and 97% of males had run
away from home. In another report in a 1990 journal of
Canada's Mental Health, authors Earls and David found that
the average age of female prostitutes leaving home was 13.7
years.
People who support the sex trade say that it is really not a big
problem and that politicians are just blowing it out of
proportion, but here are three comments from those affected by
street prostitution. The first is from a Vancouver resident, the
second by a Toronto resident and the third from the former mayor
of Toronto and current minister of defence.
First: “When prostitutes operate openly in a neighbourhood,
all women in the area become targets for cruising johns in cars
or on foot. Soon every female from 8 to 60, from your daughter
to your mother, will have been on the receiving end of some sort
of disgusting advance from a stranger while walking to the store
or playing in the park”.
The second quote: “My apartment has become a refuge from
streets which become enemy territory every night, streets where I
am approached by drug traffickers, accosted by cruising johns and
insulted by hookers; streets where menacing groups of young
people take over the corners to haggle over drug prices and yell
out to people in passing cars”.
Appearing before a parliamentary committee in 1989, the current
minister of defence stated: “I support these changes to Bill
C-49 as well as other recommendations our police are putting
forward to help us once again regain control of our streets,
namely that this offence be changed from a summary offence to a
hybrid offence requiring that those arrested be fingerprinted and
photographed, which is important in dealing with runaways who can
change their identities and their names, and others who are
trying to avoid prosecution, and that it remains, in addition to
that, within the absolute jurisdiction of a provincial court
judge”.
The minister of defence clearly stated that such a small change
to the Criminal Code could make a huge difference in the fight
against street prostitution.
I hope he will be a man of principle and lean on his cabinet
colleagues to help me so that we can all do the right thing.
1845
In 1995 the Minister of Justice introduced an omnibus bill that
touched on the Criminal Code changes to prostitution.
Unfortunately, section 213 was not changed but still today
communication offences are mere fines and slaps on the wrist.
Street prostitutes are not afraid of getting caught, nor are
they deterred in any way to give up this dark and sad way of
living.
In summary, I advocate the passage of my bill for several broad
reasons. There are symbolic sociological and national policy
reasons why we should do this. Also on behalf of local
communities most effected, they are aghast at the lack of action
to preserve the safety of their neighbourhoods. We can do it for
them.
Important, on behalf of victims, whether it is those who get
trapped in the lifestyle or the community as victim, we need to
act. Administratively we also need to provide more flexible
tools for the police so they may exercise discretion in dealing
with local variances and emerging problems.
Moreover, we need to narrow the door that permits kids from
getting involved in prostitution in the first place and have
another legal way to get them into social services.
In closing, I ask other members of this House to not obfuscate
and confuse what I am talking about, get off track and start
talking about the generalities of prostitution in society or
violence against women or developing legalized brothels or any
number of related topics not appropriate to wind into the narrow
proposal I brought forward today.
My bill is a small technical amendment which could help victims
and bring safety to our neighbourhoods. I hope it will receive
non-partisan support in that light. It is time for action. Our
communities which have sent us here expect no less.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill C-206.
The purpose of this bill is to make hybrid offences the offences
that are provided for in section 213 of the Criminal Code. These
offences relate to prostitution, as the hon. member said.
[Translation]
At the moment, section 213 of the Criminal Code calls for an
offence punishable on summary conviction. The sentence set out is
either a maximum of $2,000 or maximum imprisonment of six months,
or both.
The amendment proposed by the hon. member in Bill C-206 would
have the effect of transforming this offence into a hybrid one.
[English]
When the legislation on section 213 was introduced in the House
of Commons, the then minister of justice stated that the purpose
behind the legislation was not an attempt to deal generally with
all the legal issues connected with prostitution but a limited
attempt to address the nuisance created by street soliciting.
The legislation sought to balance the concerns of law
enforcement agencies, citizens groups, women's groups and civil
libertarians. It made criminal the public activities most
frequently engaged in for the purpose of offering or purchasing
sexual services.
Since the street soliciting offence of section 213 is intended
to assist in dealing with the social problems experienced by
neighbourhoods affected by street prostitution, making this
offence punishable by 10 years would seem disproportionate in
light of the purpose of section 213, when similar offences such
as causing disturbances in a public place are summary conviction
offences.
Another possible purpose for making this offence a hybrid
offence is to permit the fingerprinting and photographing of any
person charged under section 213, this because the identification
of criminal acts allows fingerprinting and photographing only in
the case of offenders accused of committing an indictable offence
pursuant to the federal Interpretation Act.
Some may feel fingerprinting and photographing may act as
deterrents for prostitutes and their customers. However,
experience has shown that this is not necessarily so.
[Translation]
There are already few repeat offenders among clients of
prostitutes, even without fingerprinting and photos. For example,
the statistics show that in Vancouver, for the period between 1986
and 1992, 2,045 men were charged with the offence covered by
section 213 of the Criminal Code. Of that number, only 44, or 2%,
were being charged with the same offence for a second time.
It seems that the mere fact of being arrested the first time
is enough to discourage a repeat offence.
1850
As for the prostitutes, most are photographed and
fingerprinted, often early in their career, because they are often
involved in more serious offences, such as drug-related crimes.
[English]
I am aware that a group of federal, provincial and territorial
officials has been working since 1992, as the hon. member
mentioned, to review legislation, policy and practices concerning
prostitution related activities and to bring forward
recommendations in relation to street prostitution and the
involvement of youth in prostitution.
At the request of ministers responsible for justice issues, the
working group consulted broadly with key stakeholders.
Participants in the consultations included representatives of
citizens groups, justice workers, current and former prostitutes,
municipal and provincial officials, community service providers,
educators, clergy, aboriginal groups, child welfare and health
workers, and women advocacy groups. There was a very wide
consultation.
An interim report of the consultation was issued by the working
group in October 1995. The final report is scheduled for release
sometime next month.
I will be interested, as I am sure all members of this House
will be interested, in studying the report. I am sure the
Minister of Justice and her provincial and territorial colleagues
will also study the recommendations with great interest.
I would like to add that, unlike the Reform Party, we do not
make changes to the Criminal Code based on the sensational news
story of the day or the exceptions to the rule, but with a
balanced, collaborative and consultative process. Then we act.
Let me assure the hon. member that we will be acting on the
recommendations of the working group.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
I do not agree with the hon. member's bill, I first want to congratulate
him for trying to find a solution to a problem in his riding and in his
province.
This being said, I do not think the amendment proposed in Bill
C-206 will achieve its purpose. Prostitution is indeed a very serious
problem, but amending the section to provide for a longer prison term
will not achieve the goal sought by the hon. member.
It is true that prostitution brings along various negative things
on a street, in a municipality and in a province. Associated with this
type of illicit trade are all sorts of illegal activities, such as drug
trafficking, various types of offences, theft, violence, etc.
I am convinced that providing for stiffer penalties will not solve
the problem. This was tried before by our predecessors. The hon. member
is right when he says he is proposing a technical amendment. He is not
proposing anything innovative.
Section 213, which deals with prostitution reads as follows:
(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,
(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or>
ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or
(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner
communicates or attempts to communicate with any person
for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the
sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable
on summary conviction.
Section 213 has evolved over the years. At the very beginning, it
primarily dealt with communicating. Following recent changes, it now
also deals with soliciting.
1855
I think the section was amended appropriately and that, in its
present form, it addresses the problem. The member's amendment
merely adds to what I read. He would add the words “an indictable
offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years or is guilty” to the first sentence.
As for the rest, I understand that the member is happy with
the wording of the section. He finds the sentence inadequate and
he would like to see it increased to ten years. But, as I was
saying earlier, it must be understood that in Canada, and this may
seem strange, prostitution itself is not illegal. It is brothels
and the prostitution trade that are illegal.
To go from there to wanting to criminalize these individuals at all
costs and sentencing them to ten years in jail is quite a leap.
When I heard the parliamentary secretary say that it was a
disproportionately harsh sentence, I am forced to agree with her.
If the sentence for prostitution is ten years, what will it be for
rape? What will it be for the violence we see on a regular basis?
I think the sentence has to increase in proportion to the crime.
I know that prostitution is wrong and immoral. I know all
that. We must, however, compare this offence with other offences
in the Criminal Code. I sincerely believe that this is not the way
to resolve the problem of prostitution and, as the member who
introduced the bill said, clean up our streets.
This is not the way to go about it. Nor will we clean up our
streets by gathering up syringes and other assorted objects from
the sidewalks the next morning. Increasing the sentence is not the
answer.
There is a problem, however. There is obviously a problem
because, although prostitution is said to be one of the oldest
professions in the world and to have been around forever, we can
see that it is not on the decrease. Should there be more policing?
Maybe. Should preventive efforts be stepped up? Of course.
Education also comes into it, as does the tolerance of certain
communities for this sort of activity. I think there has to be a
global approach, with adequate enforcement of the legislation, zero
tolerance, and youth education and prevention activities.
The member said earlier that young women, and even young men,
were leaving home, assuming a new identity, and so on, to go into
prostitution.
I think that if young people do, they do so because of a much more
important underlying reason, which is not prostitution. Prostitution is
the result, not the source of the problem, which we have to look for in
our society. If any energy is to be invested in this issue, I think it
should be concentrated mainly on the source. It should be concentrated
on young people.
This same party has been arguing against the Young Offenders Act
for the past few days. There are all kinds of things we can do to ensure
that timely action is be taken to help young people, to educate, reform
and rehabilitate them so that they do not end up on the street, using an
assumed name to live off prostitution.
1900
By now, you will have figured that I am opposed to this bill. I
think that Reformers are trying to address problems that do not really
come under section 213. This section deals with sexual solicitation or
communication: stopping or attempting to stop any motor vehicle;
impeding the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; stopping or
attempting to stop any person or in any manner communicating or
attempting to communicate with any person.
In an instance the one mentioned earlier by the hon. member, where
there is prostitution but drugs are also involved, as he seemed to
indicate, I think that, then again, the Criminal Code contains
provisions to deal with drug related offences, be it trafficking, use or
what not.
If violence was used, then again, I think that there are sections in the
Criminal Code that deal with assault and violence. That too is provided
for.
What I would like all parties to do more than anything else is for
members each in their riding to bring pressure to bear so that the
authorities, the community, the people in the area where there is a
problem show zero tolerance and strongly support the police in properly
enforcing the legislation.
[English]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill
C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to a
situation in our society, prostitution. I believe my comments
will generally reflect the sentiments of members of the New
Democratic Party caucus.
The issue of prostitution is certainly one that many in this
Chamber face on a day to day basis. My constituency of Winnipeg
North Centre is very much an inner city, north end community in
Winnipeg. This issue has been before us for years. There has
been much community work, much active participation by citizens
to address this issue. Community members have come together.
Members of the aboriginal community, members of other ethnic
groups, members involved in trying to seek some sense of quality
of life in our community have come together to try to address a
very serious issue.
In the context of this debate we all acknowledge this is a
serious issue. But if I went back to those groups that have been
working on this problem for so many years and presented this
option, this solution from the Reform Party, I think I would be
greeted with “oh no, not again, here we go, another attempt to
try to solve this problem through legal provisions, another
attempt to spend more money, more time, more effort on Criminal
Code sanctions, another attempt to scratch the surface of this
issue and never go beyond”.
I know members in my community want to see this Parliament for
once take this issue seriously by getting at the root causes of
the problem. Reform Party members can make all the disparaging
comments they want about the New Democratic Party and our
policies on this issue, but I suggest that if we do not start to
address the root causes of prostitution then we will never get a
handle on this issue.
We have been dealing with legal matters and Criminal Code
sanctions in this Chamber for over two decades. It goes back to
1970. I have read through some of the efforts. There have been
committees and studies on this matter. The list is endless. The
time, the effort, the money that has gone into the study of legal
provisions or Criminal Code sanctions to deal with prostitution
is endless and there is hardly any time devoted to getting at the
root causes of this issue.
1905
If we had just spent a fraction of the time and money that has
gone into this issue in terms of legal sanctions and put the
effort into matters of poverty, despair, loneliness and
deprivation that force people into prostitution, maybe today we
would be able to say we made a difference and that we have begun
to crack down on the problem. That is something we all want to
see. But no, we have spent all this time looking for an easy
fix.
Today's proposal from the Reform Party is just that, a simple
solution, a quick answer to something that is far more complex
than is acknowledged.
There have been a number of studies dating back to 1970, justice
committee reports, independent commissions and legislative
proposals, changes to the Criminal Code. I do not think that
we can conclude from all of this that we have made much of a
difference. I do not think we have really done anything to reduce
the incidence of prostitution in our communities today.
Most of the studies suggest that the problem is actually getting
worse. If we go through some of the literature, and I refer
specifically to the good work done by our own parliamentary
research branch, a February 1997 study of street prostitution by
the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics shows a sharp increase
in the number of prostitution related incidents recorded by
police since 1995.
I have not studied all the reasons for that sharp increase, but
I dare say that it is not because of all the time we have spent
studying the legal and Criminal Code provisions that surround the
issue. It is because we as a society have not really addressed
the cause at the root of it all. How are we going to stop people
from being forced into prostitution or taking advantage of
vulnerable people if we do not look at the situation?
It is interesting that Reform presents this quick fix, this
simplistic solution. When we have tried to convince members of
the Reform Party to get serious about the root causes of
prostitution, they refuse to get involved. When we on this side
of the House presented a motion for the government to set targets
to reduce unemployment and poverty, where were Reform members on
the issue? What did they do? They voted no. They would have
nothing to do with that kind of proactive approach which does
address the very root causes of prostitution.
Other studies show how serious the situation is and the
problem is not going away. Much as the Reform Party would like
to get it out of sight so it is out of mind, it is not going away
because we have not dealt with it in a systematic way by looking
at the systemic roots of the problem.
My colleague from Vancouver East has reported to me that very
recently the Positive Women's Network in Vancouver reported a
160% increase in the last two years in its membership, most of
whom are women living in poverty, many involved in the sex trade
and many facing addiction.
Those kinds of statistics showing an increase in street
solicitation, the sex trade, prostitution, are related directly
to the economic situation, growing poverty, despair, loneliness,
isolation and deprivation, a sense of no hope in terms of future
economic opportunities. They are tied directly to the economic
situation in this country. We have seen for the 85th month in a
row unemployment above 9%.
With all those factors, growing unemployment, growing poverty
and a growing gap between rich and poor, more and more people
turning to undesirable ways to stay alive out of desperation, it
does not take a lot to figure out that unless we deal with those
root causes we are not going to make prostitution go away.
1910
I know that the communities that I work with in Winnipeg North
Centre would like us to look at the root causes, to address
poverty, to address the hopelessness among children and young
people who are lured by the unscrupulous behaviour of pimps in
our society, taking advantage of everyone who is desperate to
survive in this world.
I know the sense of desperation that single parent women feel
just trying to make sure they can put food on the table.
I know how people are trying to stay alive in society today and
what desperate means they will turn to.
I would suggest to the Reform Party and to all members of the
House that if we could turn our attention to the very issues that
give rise to prostitution in our society today, maybe we could
make a difference. Maybe we could change things for the better
so that people are not forced to resort to something as horrible
as prostitution, selling their bodies to make money.
Who in our society today would do that willingly, unless out of
desperation and absolute despair about how they will survive?
Let us put our energies into the roots of the problem and not
deal with the superficial symptoms of something as serious as
prostitution in our communities today.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-206, which
requests that amendments be made to the Criminal Code of Canada.
I agree with much of the commentary I have heard from all hon.
members of the House about the seriousness of this offence.
It saddens me to look around this Chamber and see the youth of
some of the pages here, knowing that there are prostitutes out on
the street younger than they who are engaging in this trade out
of necessity. I agree with the comment of the hon. member from
the New Democratic Party that it is poverty and unemployment
which are, no doubt, at the very root of this problem in Canada.
However, I must disagree with her premise that this motion is a
simple approach to the problem. Perhaps simple is a good word,
but in a positive sense, in the amendment which has been put
forward. The reason I say that is this. There is no question
that an amendment to the Criminal Code can be cumbersome.
However, I suggest that the reason it has been put forward
is very positive. That is why I support it. The reasons I will
put forward for supporting it are equally simple.
The hon. Reform member has suggested that this would broaden the
ability of the police, and I would suggest the judges as well, in
their approach to this most serious matter. It does so for a
number of reasons.
By making this a hybrid offence which would include an
indictable offence it does a number of things, to which my friend
has referred.
First, it gives the police the ability, under the Identification
of Criminals Act, to fingerprint and take photographs, which
could be used for a broader purpose in terms of children who have
been abducted or children who are runaways. It could also be used
for the purpose of deterrence.
Deterrence is a whole philosophy and we could speak at length on
the issue of deterrence, but let me say this. A person who is
charged with an indictable offence must appear in court. I have
seen it at the provincial court level. With prostitution being a
summary offence, it becomes essentially the price of doing
business. Young prostitutes, or prostitutes of any age, will
come into court or have a lawyer appear on their behalf, pay the
fine and waltz out the door. They can amass a lengthy criminal
record which, in essence, will result in perhaps a higher fine
the next time.
Making this an indictable offence would allow judges, in their
discretion, to impose a more lengthy term of incarceration, if
necessary, or at least to apply conditions in a probation order
that would include treatment type programs. It would treat this
matter in the serious fashion in which it should be treated.
That is the main reason for which I, on behalf of the
Conservative Party, am in support of this motion.
Luckily I can say that prostitution is not a major problem in my
constituency in Nova Scotia. However, there is always the
difficulty and the problem that arises when youth, for whatever
reason, take to the streets in the bigger metropolitan areas or,
in more serious cases, when young people are abducted and forced
into this particular trade.
1915
Saying that it is the oldest profession in the world is not to
trivialize the problem at all. I do not want to draw too fine a
point on it but slavery was around for a long time too and it was
the laws that essentially brought about the necessary change,
along with the efforts and work of people against that particular
problem.
Prostitution is not going to be solved by simple amendments to
the Criminal Code. I think we can all say that quite simply.
However there is no question that this is a step in the right
direction. It saddens me to think that this can become a partisan
issue. Like a lot of justice issues, this is something the House
should be unanimous in its efforts to work toward solutions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary for the justice minister has
stated that there is a report pending. I would hope and
encourage her to keep this particular motion in mind and not to
simply dismiss it. What if the report comes back and there are
suggestions which move the Criminal Code in the very direction
the hon. member from the Reform is suggesting? I reiterate it is
very unfortunate that we see this forum being used again as a
means to get up and simply dismiss the idea outright because it
happens to come from one party or another.
I think it is a good suggestion. It is something that at least
moves us in the direction of addressing the issue in a positive
way. It improves discretion on the part of the police and judges
to act in a definitive way by imposing more innovative sentences
that might include treatment. It also allows the police to treat
the matter in a more serious way.
Also, I would reiterate the comments made by the hon. member
from the Reform. I would suggest that the perception of justice
in Canada is extremely important as to how the community views
how those actors who are imposing our criminal laws are viewing
the problem. It gives the perception that we in this Chamber and
in the justice departments around the country are looking at this
problem and looking for solutions. Not simple solutions, but
solutions that are aimed at moving in the right direction.
I am not suggesting that raising fines and putting people in
jail in itself is going to solve this problem. But it certainly
is a move in the right direction in increasing the ability of
those people charged with the enforcement of the law and giving
them a greater ability to do something about this crime. It is
not going to, as my friends from the New Democratic Party and the
Bloc suggested, get needles off the streets. It is not going to
eradicate this problem in its entirety, not by a long shot, but
it will increase the ability to act in a proactive way.
That is how I view this particular piece of legislation. It is
proactive. It is preventive. It is doing something early in the
process. This again is something which is tied in with the
changes that need to come about under the Young Offenders Act.
It is doing something early at the front end. It is loading the
resources at the beginning where the problem starts and doing
something before we get further and further down the road where
someone has been engaged in prostitution for whatever reason,
poverty, drug addiction, all sorts of reasons, a forced situation
where pimps are forcing young people into this area.
This is something that we should embrace within this House. It
is something I am supporting and I would encourage all members to
do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member from
Calgary Centre.
To remind the hon. member for Calgary Centre, if as is the usual
practice, the mover of the motion would like to sum up, it would
mean the member for Calgary Centre would have seven minutes.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for that clarification. I very much appreciate that.
I also very much appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill
C-206. I had prepared a few more comments than the time will
allow, so I may have to pause at a few opportunities and correct
accordingly.
I am particularly interested to speak to this bill. It is
important. Sometimes in this House we get so distant from the
people we represent that we need to bring forward some real live
people who have to live in the environment which we are trying to
change.
I am reminded of an elderly lady with whom I was recently in
contact in my riding. This elderly lady lived in the inner city
community that is plagued with prostitution. She has been there
for over 10 years.
She is now afraid to go out of her house at night because of the
violence outside her door that is related to street
prostitution. She pleaded with me to find a way to make a change
that would allow the police, who have become complacent with the
issue outside her door, to find a way whereby they would have new
tools that would allow them to impact the street prostitution
that she has to live with.
1920
This lady has seen the violence outside her own door. She has
watched the drug trade that has come with prostitution in her
community. She is aware of the health risks that have escalated
because of the increase in street prostitution.
I have also met with the community association of this
community. Their number one issue is street prostitution trade
in their community. They recognize that it is a multifaceted
problem. There is not a single silver bullet that is going to
solve this.
At the same time, they are calling for elected officials and
people within the community to come up with a series of
strategies that will help to resolve this problem for them.
One of the major concerns that my constituents have is the age
at which some of the young girls are getting caught up in this
industry or in prostitution. It is one of the reasons I will be
proposing a private members' bill to address this issue in the
days to come.
What is ironic here is that the majority of the effort that
police apply to affect street prostitution is targeted toward
this very activity that this bill is trying to address, the
activity of communicating for the service of prostitution, to
obtain the sexual service of a prostitute.
That is where the majority of their effort goes. Yet, the
result is a summary offence, a fine and often police are
frustrated because they continue to see a cycle of the repeat
offenders.
Changes to the act to make the possibility of an indictable
offence the result of prosecution will allow for, as has been
stated, the identification of the people who are involved, a
record to be established and potentially a jail term.
We focused on the 10-year maximum but that is obviously not
going to be the norm. That is the maximum. That should be made
clear here.
This is really not a terribly new precedent. In section 212 of
the Criminal Code, there are already indictable offences that
apply to prostitution.
Someone inciting someone else to get involved in prostitution or
someone who is living off the avails of prostitution of someone
else who is under the age of 18 are already indictable offences.
We are really not breaking tremendous new ground here. We are
just applying a correction and providing the police with a new
tool that they really could take advantage of.
Beyond these new tools to police, I am even more concerned about
some of the other benefits that flow out of this proposed bill.
The member from the Conservative Party made some reference to it.
I certainly concur with his disappointment that we would make
this a partisan issue and not have unanimous support around this
kind of initiative.
Some of the other benefits I want to speak to, particularly in
my riding, are some of the young girls who are caught up in this
activity who are runaways from home. Many of us do not realize
that prostitutes do not stay in their same community. They are
moved around to many communities across Canada. Perhaps members
do not have this problem in their own riding but some of the
people from their riding may be caught up in it and moved to
other centres.
The ability to identify these people is critical to the police
in order to track these runaways and reunite them with their
families.
I have in my possession a list of 14 young prostitutes who have
been killed in the last 10 years. They were identified and I
will get to the identification process in a minute. I wonder how
many more have just disappeared.
The greatest difficulty the police have today in these kinds of
crimes and violence against these women who are involved in
prostitution is the difficulty of identification.
1925
There are often time delays when a murder is committed before
the body is found and identification is that much more complex.
The johns of course keep a low profile. They deal with strangers
normally and there is no identification. Often they use an alias
and do not use the same name twice.
In my riding there is a charity that works with street teens and
girls who are on the streets to try to get them off the streets.
They get to know who the girls are on the streets. The police
come to that charity in order to find out who the girls are. I
think it is tragic that our police are forced to go to a charity
to identify these girls who have been tragic victims.
In summary, I think the key point of this simple piece of
legislation is that it provides better protection for our
communities, like the elderly lady I made reference to, and
allows for family reunification for those who have been caught up
in it and have run away. It allows for the prosecution of
potentially violent johns who could impact on the girls who are
caught up in this trade. It allows for improved deterrents for
those who may elect to get into it and generally safer
neighbourhoods.
If we cannot support a bill that serves to provide safer
neighbourhoods for the people we represent then I think we really
have to examine our effectiveness here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby will sum up.
Mr. Paul Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would have
liked to have heard more positive comments than what I got to
hear. I think the parliamentary secretary for the government is
sadly misled.
When I was talking about deterrents, it was not the main issue.
Identification and prevention are. The resistance to what I am
proposing flies in the face, I think, of what average Canadians
want from Parliament. The Liberals are out of touch on this
issue and of course the NDP are not even in the game.
The arguments advanced against this are completely fallacious.
What we get with it is a condescending attitude that frustrates
the public will. That is absolutely incredible.
The NDP then come along and talk about root causes and insult
the poor and associate poverty with root causes of prostitution.
We have to think about that combination of where it keeps coming
from. Round and round we have heard the arguments now and enough
of the basis of the general arguments of why we are in Canada
today where we are. The representative arguments that we have
heard in the last hour are reflective of years and years of
hand-wringing and doing absolutely nothing. The public has heard
enough. I do not think we need to hear any more that we cannot
do anything.
I am going to summarize clearly that there are broad societal
reasons why we should do this. We need to do it on behalf of
local communities and on behalf of victims. Whether it is those
who get trapped into the lifestyle or the community that is the
victim, we need to act.
Administratively, we also need to provide more flexible tools
for the police so that they may exercise discretion in dealing
with local variances and emerging problems. Moreover, we need to
narrow the door that permits kids from getting involved in
prostitution in the first place and have another legal way to get
them into social services.
My bill is a small technical amendment which could help victims
and bring safety to our neighbourhoods and bring a change which
has been both recommended by national consultation and by local
police forces. I wanted to see more common sense and support for
this idea. The people of the country are watching.
We went to a committee and this bill was deemed non-votable,
which is really an offence. In any case, we have covered the
arguments and the people listening will be able to hear. However,
I want the members of this House to pay attention to what I am
about to move and not make a mistake. It is important that this
issue be debated fully. Therefore, I appeal to the members of
this House for unanimous consent to move:
That Bill C-206 be withdrawn, the order for second reading
discharged and the subject matter thereof referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
1930
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the motion. Does the hon. member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby have the unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unfortunately the
hon. member's motion has not received unanimous consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
It being 7.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.)